ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Independent International Commission on Decommissioning

Heidi Alexander: When he expects to receive a final report on armaments from the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

Owen Paterson: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to begin by paying tribute to David Cairns, the former Member for Inverclyde, who died recently. He served as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office for a short time in the run-up to devolution in 2007, and was liked and respected in all parts of the House. I speak for many in Northern Ireland in passing on our sincere condolences.
	The British and Irish Governments have been presented with the IICD’s final report, which focuses on commissioners’ experiences and lessons learned. I am considering the report with my counterpart in the Irish Government and we will publish it in due course.

Heidi Alexander: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply, and may I associate myself with the condolences he expressed?
	When the Secretary of State announced the dissolution of the IICD and the Independent Monitoring Commission at the end of March, he thanked the commissioners for the crucial part they played in assisting Northern Ireland’s transition to a peaceful, stable and inclusive society. Given developments since, what plans does he have to continue the work previously undertaken by those bodies?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and her comments. I would like to put on record our thanks to General de Chastelain, Brigadier Nieminen and Andrew Sens for the work they have done over the years. We intend to keep Parliament updated on developments, probably by written statements.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: May I pay tribute on behalf of my colleagues to the late David Cairns, former Northern Ireland Minister, for the excellent work he undertook during his time in that post, and pass on our sympathies to his family?
	I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda on the recent Northern Ireland weapons finds in East Tyrone and South Armagh. Will he give an assurance that the amnesty previously offered under the decommissioning legislation to those handing in, and in possession of, such weapons will no longer apply, and that anyone caught in possession of weapons will be brought before the courts and any evidence arising from examination of the weapons will be used in prosecutions?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I entirely endorse his comments on the co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda and the recent arms finds in Tyrone. The amnesty to which he refers expired in February 2010, and we have no plans to reintroduce it. There is no place for arms in today’s Northern Ireland. Everyone can pursue their legitimate aims by peaceful democratic means, and those caught with arms will go through the due process of law.

Security Threat

David Hanson: What discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the level of security threat from dissidents.

Owen Paterson: Close co-operation with the Northern Ireland Executive plays a major part in our efforts to counter the threat from terrorism in Northern Ireland. This involves regular discussions with the Executive’s Justice Minister. I look forward to continuing work with the new Executive in the coming weeks and months on the security, economic and community aspects of this problem.

David Hanson: First, may I thank the Secretary of State for his tribute to David Cairns, whom I served with as a Northern Ireland Minister some years ago?
	The Secretary of State will know that the PSNI is making good progress in capturing weapons and Semtex, but, with more than 100 bombings in the last year alone, I believe it is clear that supply is coming from outside Northern Ireland. Will he work with the Executive, the Home Office, the Irish authorities and, indeed, international authorities to ensure that he does everything possible to stem the supply of such material from outside Northern Ireland?

Owen Paterson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and pay tribute to his work on Northern Ireland. He is absolutely right that we must make sure that at every level of government we work to stem the flow of fresh arms into Northern Ireland. We now have unprecedented co-operation. That is the case not only between the Westminster Government and the Northern Ireland Executive—I pay tribute to all those who have recently been elected to the Executive, and I am delighted that David Ford, whom I spoke to this morning, has been re-elected—but there is also exceptional co-operation with the Garda. I discussed this matter with the Home Secretary yesterday as well, so we are clearly working at all levels.

Laurence Robertson: May I also pay tribute to David Cairns on behalf of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs? I had the honour of working with him on a number of Committees and always found him to be extremely efficient and courteous.
	All Members will recall the show of paramilitary strength by men in balaclavas over the Easter period, which brings shame to Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State give an update on what is being done to pursue those who obviously have common cause with those who were threatening violence?

Owen Paterson: I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his remarks. As he will have seen over the weekend, the police investigation into those shocking scenes at Easter took its course, and in one case charges were laid against Marian McGlinchey. I took the decision to revoke her licence as she was charged under the Terrorism Act 2000. I spoke to the chief constable this morning. The police investigations continue, and I am confident that the PSNI will bring further charges when there is sufficient evidence.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Secretary of State accept—I am sure he will—that the outcome of the recent Assembly and council elections in Northern Ireland showed a clear endorsement of moving Northern Ireland forward and a clear rejection of those who would use violence, whose philosophy is to wreck Stormont and drag us backwards? Will he give a clear commitment to work closely with the security forces, the police and the new Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland to protect society and do whatever is necessary to protect all of us from dissident terrorist threats?

Owen Paterson: I wholeheartedly endorse the right hon. Gentleman’s comments; there is absolutely no place for the pursuit of any political aim by physical violence in Northern Ireland. I congratulate all those who were elected to the Assembly and to the Executive. Obviously, on this particular issue, I congratulate David Ford, to whom I spoke this morning. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will keep up the very closest co-operation with the Stormont Executive on this issue.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome the Secretary of State’s action on the revocation of the licence of Marian McGlinchey—or Marian Price, as she was known—as it sends out a clear signal to those who would threaten violence. Will the Secretary of State give us his assessment of the number of people he believes are involved in dissident terrorism? What is his assessment of the current level of police and other resources deployed to combat that threat?

Owen Paterson: I am not sure that the number of those involved is as important as their capability. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that these people are continuous in their efforts to attack not just the police, but completely innocent members of the general public who are going about their day-to-day business. Although these people are small in number, as we saw in the recent elections, they do have capability and we do not underestimate the threat. That is why we endorsed £50 million of spending last year, and we managed to negotiate an extraordinary settlement of a further
	£200 million over the next four years. We are absolutely determined to stand by Northern Ireland and do the right thing.

Shaun Woodward: I join the Secretary of State and hon. Members in their tribute to David Cairns. He was a much respected Minister when Labour were in government and a much loved colleague and friend. Our deepest sympathy goes to his family and his partner, Dermot.
	It would be remiss not also to take this opportunity to put on the record the fact that the Queen’s extraordinary visit to Ireland at the moment is an enormous success. It is as healing as it is inspiring. The visit both symbolises the peace process and represents the next step in that process. The process is still necessary, as dissident republican groups pose new threats to the police and the public; just this Monday, a coded bomb warning brought huge disruption to central London. What is the Secretary of State’s evaluation of the capability of this growing number of dissident terrorists, not only in Northern Ireland but here in Britain?

Owen Paterson: I entirely endorse the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on the significance of Her Majesty the Queen’s visit to the Republic of Ireland. It is a wonderful way to end the current President of Ireland’s two terms and it is a wonderful, ringing endorsement of the normality between our two nations. Significantly, the right hon. Gentleman and I are not in Ireland this morning; we are here answering questions in Parliament. This is an endorsement of the tremendous progress that has been made and a sign of how we will move further forward. On the question of capability here, we do not like to get into operational matters but, as he knows, we do not underestimate the threat of these groups and we have done a significant amount in the past year to bear down on them.

Shaun Woodward: The threat, none the less, has clearly heightened, not only in Northern Ireland, but here in Britain. We must all ensure that in Northern Ireland, as well as here in Britain, no part of government resides in just hoping for the best; realism is as vital a tool in containment as is prevention. As part of that realism, the British Government must continue to recognise their responsibility in addressing the sectarian legacy of the troubles. What is the Secretary of State’s response to Co-operation Ireland’s bid for £20 million from the British Government—not from the Assembly—to ensure that in Northern Ireland the big society is more than just aspiration?

Owen Paterson: Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We increased the threat level from moderate to substantial in Great Britain last year and we are doing what we think is necessary to work closely with the authorities not just in Northern Ireland but in the Republic and to bear down on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this is a policy of containment long term and we need to break the cycle. We are extremely interested in the projects run by Co-operation Ireland, such as that in Kilwilkie, but many of these projects are also run by the devolved Administration. As I mentioned in my reply to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), we will discuss this work with the new devolved Ministers. I had a meeting with the chairman of Co-operation Ireland this week and I shall see him in Dublin later in the week.

Personal Protection Training

Patrick Mercer: Whether he has reviewed the personal protection training plan for Government workers and VIPs in Northern Ireland in the light of recent trends in terrorist activity; and if he will make a statement.

Hugo Swire: The Government regularly review the guidance issued to staff on personal security and make them aware of any changes in the terrorist threat. The Chief Constable is responsible for the operational provision of close protection, which can include Government workers and VIPs.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Can the Minister assure the House that, following the terribly sad death of Constable Kerr, specific training methods are being put in place to help protect VIPs, policemen and the like against the threat of under-car booby-traps?

Hugo Swire: Yes, I can. My hon. Friend will know, as he did many tours in Northern Ireland, that the enemy to personal security is complacency. It is incumbent on all those employed by the state in one way or another to be vigilant at all times. The Chief Constable goes to bed thinking about the security of his policemen and women and he wakes up thinking about them, too, as do we in the Northern Ireland Office.

Gregory Campbell: The Minister will be aware that a small number of civilians work in security establishments in Northern Ireland, particularly in areas with a high dissident terrorist threat. He should also be aware that I wrote to him some three months ago about one such person who was trying to get a personal protection weapon to ensure his safety as he went to and from his work. Will the Minister ensure that he gets in touch with the Chief Constable to ensure that person’s safety, in so far as that can be guaranteed, in the light of this threat?

Hugo Swire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We take applications for PPW licences extremely seriously and they are looked into in great detail and independently assessed. I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers and we will get back to him once we have all the necessary details.

Bill of Rights

Paul Murphy: What progress has been made on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.

Hugo Swire: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, progress on this issue has been difficult in the absence of any agreement within Northern Ireland on how best to proceed. We want to see the issue resolved and we will be taking the views of the new Executive, political parties and others in Northern Ireland on how best to move matters forward.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful for that answer. I want to pay my own tribute to the late David Cairns, who was a fine Minister and a fine man.
	With a new Executive and new Assembly in Northern Ireland, and as this issue is a fundamental part of the Good Friday agreement and the political process over the years, will the Minister undertake to try to seek consensus among all the political parties in Northern Ireland as soon as he can?

Hugo Swire: The Secretary of State and I have been very clear. We said we would return to this after the election of the new Assembly, which has now happened. The right hon. Gentleman might not be aware of the commission on a UK Bill of Rights, and the Lord Chancellor has written to the First Minister asking for two people from Northern Ireland to advise on the implications for Northern Ireland. The Executive need to initiate a parallel process to come to some consensus on what specific rights that recognise Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances might look like.

Stephen Pound: When members of the United States Congress asked the same question, perhaps not as elegantly as it was phrased by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), the Prime Minister replied in a letter that he stood “ready to facilitate agreement”. Will the Minister tell me what steps he and the Secretary of State have taken in the past six months specifically to facilitate this agreement?

Hugo Swire: We have talked to a number of people, not least the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, and we are currently advertising for replacements. The Secretary of State and I have been quite frank and have said that we want to return to the issue after the election and to move forward on it, which the hon. Gentleman’s party, I point out gently to him, did not do for 12 years.

Union (Referendum)

Gregg McClymont: What his policy is on the treatment of any request by a Northern Ireland political party for a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland as part of the Union; and if he will make a statement.

Hugo Swire: No such request has been made to the Government. The policy and legal position on this issue is set out in the Belfast agreement and the subsequent legislation, the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Gregg McClymont: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that Sinn Fein raised the issue of a referendum in the recent Assembly elections. May I push the Minister a little further and ask what mechanisms would be used to deal with any future request for a referendum?

Hugo Swire: I do not want to dwell on the hon. Gentleman’s domestic situation in Scotland—it is not the same in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has the right to hold a referendum at any point and he has a duty to hold one if it appears there is likely to be a majority for a united Ireland. It is quite clear in the Belfast agreement, but no such situation arises in Northern Ireland. Indeed, we very much hope that the new Executive will concentrate on bread-and-butter issues such as the economy rather than issues that seem to be of interest in Scotland.

Mark Durkan: Does the Minister recognise that dissidents try to make the argument on the ground in nationalist areas that those of us who support the Good Friday agreement have gone derelict on Irish unity? Does he recognise therefore that he has to treat with validity those of us who make the case for framing progress towards unity? Will he confirm that in the event of a referendum the British Government would play no part in imposing or opposing any free choice that would be made by the Irish people?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman’s party’s position is well known and I pay tribute here again to the way in which his party has embraced the ballot box and the democratic process. In a referendum, that would be for the people of Northern Ireland to decide. I can do no better than support the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—it is probably a career-advancing thing to do—who, in a speech in May 2010, stated clearly and unequivocally:
	“I will never be neutral on our Union. We passionately believe that England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are stronger together, weaker apart”.
	I believe that, as Aristotle said, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Terrorism (Powers of Detention)

Paul Goggins: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on powers to detain terrorist suspects.

Hugo Swire: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regarding this issue. The Government are absolutely clear that reducing the maximum pre-charge detention period to 14 days will strike the right balance between civil liberties and the need to protect the public from the terrorist threat.

Paul Goggins: I thank the Minister for his reply. David Cairns was a fine colleague and I join all those who have paid tribute to him this morning.
	The recent detention of three terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland for periods of 13 and 14 days indicates that the Government are right to bring in arrangements to extend the maximum period of detention beyond 14 days in exceptional circumstances. Given the likely pressures of those circumstances, does the Minister agree that the mechanism for implementing those arrangements needs to be both swift and straightforward?

Hugo Swire: The Minister does very much agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said in his usual responsible manner. The right hon. Gentleman is on the Joint Committee that is scrutinising the draft emergency legislation. I agree with everything he has said and I urge him to make his point very forcefully. The principle is right and we must make certain that, if necessary, we can enforce that principle swiftly whether Parliament is sitting or not.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the decision by the Secretary of State to revoke the licence of Marian Price. Is he as concerned as I am that the
	courts would have granted bail to the Old Bailey bomber on charges of support for an illegal organisation? What sort of message do our courts send out if they seem to take a softly, softly approach to confronting dissident republican terrorists?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that justice is a devolved matter. I believe that my right hon. Friend acted extremely swiftly and that he was right to do what he did. The legal process will take its usual course.

Economy

Alun Cairns: What recent assessment he has made of the state of the Northern Ireland economy.

Owen Paterson: Like many in Northern Ireland, I believe that we need to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy and boost private sector growth and investment. The Government will work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to help make Northern Ireland a beacon for foreign investment and growth.

Alun Cairns: Enterprise zones in England are an exciting opportunity to grow the private sector, and I hope they will be delivered in my constituency by the Welsh Assembly Government. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what progress is being made in Northern Ireland to deliver such an innovative opportunity?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. I have been travelling to Northern Ireland for nearly four years and wanting to turn the whole of Northern Ireland into an enterprise zone, making it an attractive place for investment and building on all the advantages that it now has. On my hon. Friend’s specific question, enterprise zones as described in the Budget are now in devolved hands and I hope the devolved Ministers grasp the opportunity with both hands. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. The House must hear Mr Sammy Wilson.

Sammy Wilson: Recently the Irish Republic abolished air passenger duty, which has put at risk cross-Atlantic flights from Northern Ireland and had an impact on the tourist and investment strategy of the Executive. Ironically, that was done as a result of loans facilitated by the UK Government. Will the Secretary of State ensure that in the renegotiation of those loans or any further loans, conditions are attached that stop the Irish Republic gaining such competitive advantage?

Owen Paterson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his re-election, and re-election to his Ministry. He is right that maintaining good, cheap and quick transport links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the world is vital. I have discussed APD with Treasury colleagues. A consultation is going on and I would like to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss how we work together on the matter. In meetings with the Government in Dublin, I will also raise the issue.

West Lothian Question

Harriett Baldwin: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the establishment of a commission to examine the West Lothian question.

Hugo Swire: I discussed the matter recently with the Minister with responsibility for political and constitutional reform, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). The Government will establish a commission this year to consider the West Lothian question.

Harriett Baldwin: Does the Minister agree that, given the complexity of the West Lothian question, no time should be lost in establishing the commission?

Hugo Swire: The programme for government promised to establish it in this Parliament, so the answer is yes.

Security Threat

Wayne David: What assessment he has made of the security threat from dissident republicans; and if he will make a statement.

Owen Paterson: The threat level in Northern Ireland remains at severe. Despite the overwhelming community rejection of their murderous strategy following the despicable murder of Ronan Kerr last month, the terrorist groups continue to pose an indiscriminate threat to the lives of police officers and the general public, who just want to go about their lives without fear, disruption or intimidation.

Wayne David: I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments, but may I have a reassurance that everything possible is being done to make sure that those people are apprehended as quickly as possible?

Owen Paterson: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we take the threat extremely seriously. We do not underestimate it. As I said earlier, we endorsed an extra £50 million package last year for the PSNI and we have negotiated an exceptional four-year plan of £200 million over the coming years. I know that Matt Baggott, the Chief Constable, to whom I spoke this morning, is already putting those funds to very good use. We are determined to bear down on that small number of wholly unrepresentative, dangerous people.

Legacy Issues

Ian Murray: Whether he plans to provide further direct funding for projects to deal with legacy issues in Northern Ireland.

Owen Paterson: This Government funded the four public inquiries into legacy cases, which were set up under the previous Government, so that they could be completed as soon as possible. I am currently considering what, if any, further role the Government can play in dealing with the past in Northern Ireland.

Ian Murray: A successful and prosperous future for Northern Ireland requires the Government to deal responsibly with all outstanding issues related to the peace process. Does the Secretary of State intend to honour all those outstanding issues?

Owen Paterson: Yes, I understand the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We endorse the agreements. We made that clear, as our record over the past year shows, but we also recognise that the past continues to be an issue. That is why I am continuing to talk to a wide range of groups, as is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to see whether we can find a way forward on which we can work with the Executive.

Naomi Long: Does the Secretary of State agree that a coherent and comprehensive strategy to deal with legacy issues is vital if we are to build a stable future for the people of Northern Ireland?

Owen Paterson: I could not quite hear the hon. Lady’s question, but I think I got the gist of it. As she knows, it is not easy to achieve consensus on this issue, which is why we are carrying on this listening exercise and talking with a wide range of groups, and I am very happy to talk and listen to her.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Philip Hollobone: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 May.

David Cameron: I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to Marine Nigel Mead from 42 Commando Royal Marines, who was killed by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan on Sunday. He was a selfless, enthusiastic and committed Marine who has made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country. Our thoughts must be with his family, his friends and his colleagues.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, this afternoon I will be travelling to Dublin as part of this week’s historic state visit by Her Majesty the Queen.

Philip Hollobone: May I associate myself and my constituents with the Prime Minister’s words of condolence?
	Under rules introduced in 2003, illegal migrants who manage to avoid the authorities for 14 years can apply for permanent stay, have full access to the welfare system and even obtain a British passport. Given that in the past eight years nearly 10,000 such migrants have won such rights, and with an estimated half a million illegal immigrants in Britain today, will the Prime Minister seek to change those rules and restore some sanity to Britain’s border controls?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have pledged to break the link between temporary migration and permanent settlement in the UK because we believe that settling in Britain should be
	a privilege, rather than an automatic right for those who have evaded the authorities for a certain amount of time. We are going to consult on further measures, including the future of the 14-year rule he mentioned, and make announcements later this year. We have already announced that there will be tighter rules for those wanting to settle here, and have already implemented a new income and English language requirement for skilled workers who have been here for more than five years.

Edward Miliband: May I start by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Marine Nigel Mead from 42 Commando Royal Marines? He showed exceptional bravery and courage, like all our troops in Afghanistan, and our thoughts are with his family and friends.
	The role of the Justice Secretary is to speak for the nation on matters of justice and crime. This morning he was on the radio suggesting that there were “serious” rapes and other categories of rapes. Would the Prime Minister like to take this opportunity to distance himself from the Justice Secretary’s comments?

David Cameron: First of all, let me say that rape is one of the most serious crimes there is, and it should be met with proper punishment. Anyone who has ever met a rape victim and talked with them about what that experience means to them and how it stays with them for the rest of their life could only want it to have the most serious punishment possible. The real disgrace in our country is that only 6% of rapes reported to a police station end in a conviction. That is what we have to sort out. I have not heard the Justice Secretary’s interview, but the position of the Government is very clear: there is an offence called rape and anyone who commits it should be prosecuted, convicted and punished very severely.

Edward Miliband: Let me tell the Prime Minister what the Justice Secretary said this morning. He was asked about the average sentence a rapist gets. The interviewer said, “A rapist gets five years,” and then the Justice Secretary said in reply, “That includes date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15-year-olds”. He went on to say that there were categories of “forcible rape” and “serious rape”. The Justice Secretary cannot speak for the women of this country when he makes comments like that.

David Cameron: As I said, I have not heard the interview, but the point is this: it should be a matter for the court to decide the seriousness of the offence and the sentence that ought to be passed. I served on the Sexual Offences Bill under the last Government, and we looked at all the issues about whether we should try to differentiate between different categories of rape—and I seem to remember that one of the right hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench was leading the debate for the Government. We decided, as a House of Commons, not to make that distinction. What matters is this: do we get more cases to court, do we get more cases convicted, and do we get more cases sent down for decent sentences? That is the concern we should have.

Edward Miliband: When the Prime Minister leaves the Chamber, he should go and look at the comments of the Justice Secretary—and let me just say to him very clearly: the Justice Secretary should not be in his post at
	the end of today. That is the first thing the Prime Minister should do. The second thing he should do is to drop this policy, because this policy, which they are defending, is the idea that if you plead guilty to rape you get your sentence halved. That could mean that rapists spend as little as 15 months in prison. That is not an acceptable policy, and the Prime Minister should drop it.

David Cameron: I think that what the Leader of the Opposition might be doing is jumping to conclusions on this issue. The point is this: there is already a plea bargaining system in Britain, for one third, and we are consulting on whether to extend the system to make it even more powerful. We have not yet decided which offences it should apply to, or how it should be brought in, because there is a consultation, but the aim of plea bargaining—it is worth remembering this, because plea bargaining is used in very tough criminal justice systems, such as America’s—is to ensure that more people get prosecuted, more people get convicted, and it actually saves the victim from having to go through a court process and find out at the end that the culprit is going to submit a guilty plea at the last minute. That is what the Government are looking at, and when we have listened to the consultation we will announce our conclusions—but he needs to be patient until we do that.

Edward Miliband: We are getting used to this. As we saw on health, when there is a terrible policy the Prime Minister just hides behind the consultation. Frankly, it is just not good enough. Let me tell him what people think of this policy. The judges are saying the policy is wrong, End Violence Against Women is saying that it is the wrong policy, and his own Victims Commissioner says that the policy is “bonkers”. I know that he is in the middle of a consultation, but I would like to hear his view on this policy, which he should drop.

David Cameron: The terrible fact that the right hon. Gentleman refers to is that only 6% of rape cases are prosecuted and end in a conviction. That is after 13 years of the Labour party running the criminal justice system, so that is the improvement we want to see. He wants to know my view: my view is get out there, convict, prosecute and send these people down for a decent period of time. That is what we should be doing. Rape is such a serious offence, so he should wait for the outcome of the consultation, rather than just jumping on the bandwagon.

Edward Miliband: This is about the way the Prime Minister runs his Government, because yesterday the Justice Secretary said that this
	“proposal is likely to survive”—[Official Report, 17 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 150]
	the consultation, and the prisons Minister was defending the policy. People are rightly angry about this policy; they think that it is the wrong policy. All I am asking is something very simple: why does not the Prime Minister give us his view?

David Cameron: I have given you my view, and I will give you my—[ Interruption. ] I have. I want to see more people prosecuted and convicted for rape, and we are going to take steps to make sure that happens. But I will give you my view on something else—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Yes, which is this: I think there is merit in having
	a plea bargaining system, which we have already—and which should be discretionary, to try to make sure that we convict more. What we had under the previous Government was a mandatory release of all prisoners, irrespective of what they had done. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman sat in the Cabinet that let 80,000 criminals out of prison. That was not a discretionary policy; it was a mandatory policy—and it was a disgraceful policy.

Edward Miliband: Does the Prime Minister not realise what people are thinking of him on crime? Before the election he made a whole series of promises, and now he is breaking them one by one. He was out of touch on anonymity for rape victims, and now he is out of touch on sentencing for rape. He is cutting the number of police officers—cutting 12,000 police officers. Why does he not go back to the drawing board on crime, and get rid of his Justice Secretary?

David Cameron: Talking of broken promises, I remember the Leader of the Opposition saying at his party conference, about Ken Clarke:
	“I’m not going to say he’s soft on crime.”
	Well, that pledge did not last very long. One of these days the Labour party is going to realise that opposition is about more than just jumping on a bandwagon and picking up an issue; it is about putting forward a serious alternative and making some serious points. [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I call Sir Alan Haselhurst.

Alan Haselhurst: This question is by way of contrast, Mr Speaker. In harmony with the priority being given by the Government to strengthening relations with the Commonwealth, does my right hon. Friend attach importance to the particular role of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and will he do his best to find a way of marking that when the centennial conference of the CPA takes place in London in July?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is an important part of the Commonwealth. For the celebration of that anniversary I have had an extremely attractive invitation to go along and say a few words, and I will certainly see whether I can.

Tom Blenkinsop: Why is the Prime Minister giving private and confidential NHS prescription records of 9 million British citizens to multinational private companies that will no doubt show no mercy with that information?

David Cameron: What we are trying to do is clean up the mess of Labour’s NHS IT programme, which cost billions of pounds and is still struggling. We are desperately trying to get it under control and make sure we can save money to put into health care.

Simon Kirby: Will the Prime Minister join me in sending a message of support to Tony Blair’s former speechwriter, Peter
	Hyman, who is seeking to set up one of the coalition’s excellent new free schools in east London?
	[
	Interruption.
	]

David Cameron: It is funny that Labour Members do not want to listen to Tony Blair’s speechwriter, as they listened with such rapt attention for so many years to what he said. I welcome the free schools policy, and I very much welcome what Peter Hyman is doing in trying to establish a free school. I think this is an excellent policy. Yesterday we had a new policy from Labour when the shadow Education Secretary said that just because he is opposed to the free schools policy, that does not mean he is opposed to every free school. We are back to the days of John Prescott, being told that we cannot have new good schools because everyone might want to go to them. We are back to old Labour.

Nigel Dodds: Does not the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to the Irish Republic this week demonstrate not just her own personal courage in carrying out such a visit in the face of severe dissident terrorist threats, but also, whatever reservations some of us may have about one particular aspect of her visit, the extent of the improvement in relations between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a proud part, as well as a recognition of Northern Ireland’s status? Is it not also an opportunity to build on co-operation to fight the dissident terrorists who still plague us in Northern Ireland and in the Republic?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is right in every respect. This is a remarkable visit that demonstrates that the relationship between Britain and the Republic of Ireland is strong, and has probably never been stronger, with the successful devolution of policing and justice that made the visit possible. The scenes on our television screens last night of the visits that Her Majesty made to heal the wounds of the past, but also to look to a very bright future between our two countries, are remarkable and hugely welcome.

Alan Beith: Since it is the people of this country who have paid the enormous bills for bank failures, should not they get some reward for their sacrifice by being given shares when the banks are eventually denationalised? Will the Prime Minister look at the imaginative scheme put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), which is now backed by The Sun newspaper, to do that?

David Cameron: I will certainly look at all the possible ways of putting the nationalised banks back into the private sector. I personally strongly support the idea of widening share ownership, so we will look carefully at the scheme that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. We also have to make sure that we secure value for money for the taxpayer as we try to fill in the great deep pit of debt that we were left by Labour.

Rachel Reeves: Today hundreds of women in their 50s, supported by Age UK, have come to Parliament to protest against unfair changes to their pensions. The coalition agreement says that there
	will be no increase in women’s state pension age before 2020, yet under the Pensions Bill that increase will start in 2018. Why the U-turn?

David Cameron: Yet again, here is another reform important for making sure that our pensions system is affordable and sustainable that Labour has completely given up on. What we are doing with pensions is linking them back to earnings—something that was promised repeatedly but never done—and making sure that our pensions system is sustainable for the long term. That is what we are delivering—something never done by Labour.

James Gray: The people of England have almost as much to lose from any move towards Scottish independence and the break-up of the Union as the people of Scotland. Will the Prime Minister therefore give us all a vote in a referendum on the subject?

David Cameron: I have made my views clear: if the Scottish Parliament wanted to hold a referendum, although I think that that would be a retrograde step, we would have to grant it. I would then join with everyone in this House and beyond who supports our United Kingdom to ensure that we keep it together. That is the process that we should go through, and it would involve a vote for people in Scotland, not for those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Michael Connarty: I am a very generous person, so I compliment the Government on eventually deciding to sign up to the EU human trafficking directive. A recent report by the Children’s Commissioner for Scotland said that he could identify 200 children trafficked into Scotland, and ECPAT UK has stated that 1,000 children have been trafficked into the rest of the UK. Both bodies recommend that the Government appoint an independent human trafficking rapporteur and strengthen the guardianship system for children. Given that the Government have cut specialist teams in the Home Office and the police in this area, how can they assure the House that the UK is prepared for the responsibility that comes with signing up to the EU directive?

David Cameron: I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman says, because I know that he has a deep concern about trafficking, as do many Members of our House. Frankly, the fact that children and young adults are trafficked for sex and other purposes in our world is completely disgraceful, and we have to stamp it out. We have signed up to the directive, as he said, and we were already complying with the terms of the directive. We must do everything we can to stamp out this repulsive practice.

Nuclear Deterrent

Julian Lewis: What recent discussions he has had with the Leader of the Opposition on the future of the nuclear deterrent.

David Cameron: Although I have discussions on many issues with the Leader of the Opposition, the nuclear deterrent has not recently been one of them.
	That is partly because the Government’s policy is absolutely clear: we are committed to retaining an independent nuclear deterrent based on Trident. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will make a statement to Parliament today announcing our decision to proceed with initial gate.

Julian Lewis: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for repeating our commitment to the future of Trident, its renewal and a continuous at-sea deterrent. Would he give his blessing to hon. Members in the Conservative party and on the Labour Benches who, like him, think that the nuclear deterrent should be above party politics, if they formed an alliance on this important issue, just as we did so successfully on the alternative vote?

David Cameron: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be better if we could elevate this issue above party politics. Indeed, when we voted to go ahead with Trident it was on the basis of a Labour motion that was supported by most Labour MPs and almost all Conservative MPs. However, I have a feeling that my hon. Friend would never be satisfied, even if I placed a Trident submarine in the Solent, opposite his constituency, and handed him the codes—something, I am afraid, that I am simply not prepared to do.

Paul Flynn: Why continue to waste billions on a national virility symbol that has played no part in any of the military operations that we have taken part in over the last seven years, and is unlikely to play any part in the future? Does it not give justification and encouragement to other countries in acquiring their own nuclear weapons?

David Cameron: I do not accept either part of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. First, we are signatories to the non-proliferation agreement and are strong supporters of it. Secondly, the point of our nuclear deterrent is just that—deterrence. It is the ultimate insurance policy against blackmail or attack by other countries. That is why I believe it is right to maintain and replace it.

Engagements

James Clappison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no case for giving the EU powers over taxation, least of all in the present circumstances? Will he assure me that the Government will simply say no to the proposed EU directive for a common corporate tax base?

David Cameron: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend. Those in the EU who want to see further tax harmonisation usually make one of two arguments: either they want to raise more money for the EU, which I do not agree with, or they are trying to reduce tax competition within the EU, which I also do not agree with. It is important that we keep our competitive tax rates and do not give the EU further coverage over our tax base.

John Robertson: The ministerial code is extensive in its guidelines and rules governing Ministers. What is the policy of the Prime Minister and his Government on Ministers who break the ministerial code?

David Cameron: Obviously, breaking the ministerial code is an extremely serious offence. I know that the hon. Gentleman has asked questions before about the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and let me be clear that the Employment Minister played no part in the decision-making process to award Work programme contracts. I want to make that point clear to the hon. Gentleman, as he has asked me the question.

Oliver Colvile: May I echo the tribute that my right hon. Friend paid to Nigel Mead, the young Royal Marine who was serving with 3 Commando Brigade, which is based in my constituency? Given the recent inflation figures and the loose monetary conditions that contributed to the causes of the credit crunch, should my right hon. Friend now lead a fundamental debate reviewing the inflation target, and the operation and workings of the Monetary Policy Committee?

David Cameron: The point that I would make to my hon. Friend is that one of the fundamental causes of the problems during the credit crunch was the poor regulation of our banking system and credit. We have taken steps to put that right by putting the Bank of England back at the pinnacle of that system, after the failure of the system put in place by the Labour party. On inflation, I strongly support monetary policy being independent and established by the Bank of England. I do not want to go back to the bad old days of the Treasury setting interest rates. I think it is better to have that power vested in the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England.

Jessica Morden: A number of my constituents with very serious health conditions are being declared fit for work under the Department for Work and Pensions work capability assessment. Can the Prime Minister give me a guarantee that the assessment will be fit for purpose by the time of the big move from incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance, especially in the light of cuts at the DWP?

David Cameron: Of course we want to get the tests right, but I believe that the tests are showing that it has been wrong to leave so many people on benefits for so long without proper assessment. Of course, we can always improve the processes, and we will ensure that we do that as we go along, but I think it is absolutely right to go through people on all benefits and ask whether they can work, and what help they need to work. Then if they are offered work that they do not take, frankly, they should not go on getting benefits.

Peter Tapsell: Now that there is to be a full investigation into the abduction or murder of Madeleine McCann, is there not a much stronger case for a full investigation into the suicide or murder of Dr David Kelly?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is raising two issues. First, on the issue of Madeleine McCann, it is welcome that the Metropolitan police have decided to
	review the case and the paperwork. On the issue of Dr David Kelly, I thought the results of the inquest that was carried out and the report into it were fairly clear, and I do not think it is necessary to take that case forward.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that the most revealing statistic in recent days has been the fact that in recession-hit Britain, the billionaires have gone up by 20—an increase of 37%—in the first year of this Tory rule, while in the real world inflation is going through the roof and thousands of blind people are having to march through the streets of London to hang on to their disability living allowance? What a savage indictment of this lousy, rotten Tory Government, propped up by these pathetic Liberals—[Interruption.]

David Cameron: I can see that the hon. Gentleman enjoyed that—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s reply.

David Cameron: I think that the most revealing statistics today are the unemployment figures, which show that employment in our country is up by 118,000, that unemployment is down by 36,000, and that youth unemployment fell by 30,000. Those are the statistics of what is happening in the real world, rather than in the dinosaur land that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) still inhabits.

Anna Soubry: Hard-working families in Broxtowe want a cap on benefits, but the Labour party will vote against such a cap. Would the Prime Minister help us in this way: who is living in the real world and who is representing real families—us or them?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are proposing a cap of £26,000 on the benefits that a family can receive. People would have to earn something like £40,000 to get that level of income. Frankly, some people will be watching this and thinking, “I’m earning £15,000”—or £16,000, or £17,000—“Why am I paying my taxes to go to families that are getting more than £26,000 in benefits?” To answer my hon. Friend’s question, the Government are in touch with what people want, and the Labour party seems to have gone to sleep.

Julie Elliott: What can the Prime Minister say to the people of Sunderland, the largest city in the north-east, and to my constituents, about the news that the Olympic torch is not stopping in the city?

David Cameron: I have to say that I was not aware of that. Perhaps I can look into the route that the Olympic torch will take—and if it is possible to divert it via Sunderland, I will certainly do my best.

Margot James: An increasing number of European Court of Human Rights and European Court of Justice judgments are deeply unpopular in our country, and intrude on what should be the preserve of member states. Will the
	Prime Minister assure my constituents that he will use every ounce of his considerable personal authority to support efforts to push back those overbearing institutions?

David Cameron: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are leading the process of trying to reform the ECHR so that it pays more attention to the decisions of national Parliaments and, crucially, national courts. As for the ECJ, one thing that we must do is stop the transfer of further powers from Westminster to Brussels. That is why we are putting in place the referendum lock.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Prime Minister think that the power and influence of this House of Commons will be diminished or increased by the reforms to the House of Lords that were announced yesterday?

David Cameron: I think that Parliament as a whole will be increased in terms of authority and respect. It is right to insert into the House of Lords some elected peers, so that we recognise that in the modern world, it is right to have two Chambers that are predominantly elected. That is the policy of the Government. It is clear to me that there are massive divisions on both sides of the House about that policy. However, this is an opportunity for the House of Commons to try to find a path through those, which we must do to achieve what was in every manifesto: elections to the House of Lords.

Alok Sharma: An independent investigation is due to report on allegations that Reading borough council, when last under Labour control, diverted section 106 moneys to plug gaps in the general budget, and also to fund unrelated projects. Can the Prime Minister offer any advice on how residents can make use of the Localism Bill to ensure that section 106 money is spent correctly?

David Cameron: I would make two points to my hon. Friend. First, the Localism Bill gives local people a greater ability to influence what happens to section 106 money. Secondly, because of the new homes bonus, councils that go ahead with building homes will get more money, so they need not feel that they must go for one huge development in order to draw in the section 106 money. It could be that a different pattern of development—one more in tune with what local people want—would deliver some of the benefits that local people want to see.

Jenny Chapman: May I return the Prime Minister to his earlier remarks on rape? We all support moves to make the justice system easier for women, but many people out there—victims and non-victims alike—find his proposals to reduce sentences by up to 50% abhorrent and frightening. The only responsible thing for him to do is to take that out of any consultation now.

David Cameron: The point is that what the hon. Lady says is not what we are proposing—[Hon. Members: “Yes it is!”] Let me make this point as well: because this Government take the crime of rape so seriously, we have boosted the funding for rape crisis centres. The real need—frankly, the whole House should unite on
	this—is to change the fact that 94% of rapists are walking the streets free because they have not been convicted. That is what we have got to change.

Aidan Burley: There are currently 2,500 trade union representatives across the public sector paid not to provide the service that they represent but to carry out campaigning activities that should be funded by the unions—and because the unions do not pay their salaries, they can spend their subs on other things, such as subsidising that lot over there. Does the Prime Minister not think it time that that was reformed?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises an important point. [Hon. Members: “No he doesn’t!”] It is interesting that whenever someone raises a point about union funding they get shouted down by the Labour party, because Labour Members do not want any examination of what trade unions do, or how much money they give to the Labour party. [Interruption.] I think that they protest a little too much.

Ian Lavery: I am absolutely delighted to be supported by the trade union movement. May I ask the Prime Minister why he has not sacked his NHS adviser, Mark Britnell, who said that the NHS would be shown “no mercy”, and that the reforms would be a “big opportunity” for private profit and would transform the NHS into an
	“insurance provider, not a state deliverer"?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clear this up. When I read about Mr Britnell being my adviser, I was slightly puzzled, because I have never heard of this person in my life, and he is not my adviser. However, I did a little research, and it turned out that he was an adviser to the previous Government. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Oh, don’t worry, there is plenty more. He helped to develop Labour’s NHS plan in 2000, which increased the role of the private sector, he was appointed by Labour as chief executive of one of the 10 strategic health authorities set up by Labour, and when the Leader of the Opposition was in the Cabinet, Mark Britnell was director general for NHS commissioning. Although I do not know him, therefore, I suspect that Labour Members know him rather well.

Hon. Members: More!

Andrew Tyrie: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot understand why the House does not wish to hear Mr Andrew Tyrie.

Andrew Tyrie: I was rather impressed by that last answer, but I will draw the Prime Minister on to something else. Yesterday the Government announced plans to reform the second Chamber. Can he tell the House whether he will use all means necessary, including the Parliament Acts, to protect the coalition’s legislative programme?

David Cameron: The short answer is yes. This is Government legislation, like any other piece of Government legislation, and will be scrutinised, carried through, debated and discussed, and then passed in the same way.

Nuclear Industry Safety

Paul Flynn: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will make a statement on the implications of the Weightman report. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: The Energy and Climate Change Secretary will answer the urgent question on behalf of the Government. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, affording the Secretary of State the courtesy of a decent hearing.

Christopher Huhne: Earlier today I laid before the House the chief nuclear inspector’s interim report on the events at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear site in March. Dr Weightman’s final report is due in September. Safety is, and will continue to be, our No. 1 priority, and I believe that it is vital that the regulators and industry continue to adhere to the principle of continuous improvement for all existing and future nuclear sites and facilities. Dr Weightman has drawn a number of conclusions. He states:
	“The direct causes of the nuclear accident, a magnitude 9 earthquake and the associated 14 metre high tsunami, are far beyond the most extreme…events that the UK would be expected to experience.”
	In that respect, he concludes that there is
	“no reason for curtailing the operation of nuclear power plants or other nuclear facilities in the UK.”
	Nevertheless, Dr Weightman notes:
	“severe events can occur from other causes and learning from events is fundamental to…the robustness of”
	our nuclear safety arrangements. I can therefore confirm that once further work on the recommendations is completed, any proposed improvements to safety arrangements will be considered and implemented in line with our normal regulatory approach to nuclear safety.
	The interim report also identifies various matters that should be reviewed to improve the safety of the UK nuclear industry. I consider it an absolute priority that the regulators, industry and Government should act responsibly to learn from the 26 recommendations in today’s report and respond to them within one month. My officials will review the interim report carefully, but from my discussions with Dr Weightman, I see no reason why we should not proceed with our current policy—that nuclear can be part of the future energy mix, as it is today— providing that there is no public subsidy. The interim report does not identify any implications for the strategic siting or assessment of new reactors, and I do not believe that the final report will either. Subject to careful consideration of the detail of Dr Weightman’s interim report, I intend to bring forward the energy national policy statement for ratification as soon as possible. I strongly welcome Dr Weightman’s interim report. I encourage the regulators to work closely with industry and other partners to take the recommendations forward, and I look forward to receiving the final report in the autumn.

Paul Flynn: The nightmare of Fukushima continues and intensifies. In the past seven days, the no-go area has been extended from 20 km to 30 km, and the residents of the towns of Kawamata and Iitate have been expelled from their homes. There is now proof that the greatly feared meltdown has taken place, and it is out of control. This is all in the past seven days. It is not possible in just eight weeks to make any assessment of the extent of this terrifying event, but that is what the Government have tried to do. This is not about science; this is about spin and PR. The whole reason for putting out the report so prematurely is to shore up collapsing public opinion and investor opinion.
	Of course Britain is not Japan, as the report says, but there have been tsunamis here too. There was one that affected my constituency, destroying all human and animal life, and that was on the Severn estuary, where several nuclear power stations are placed. Our threat comes from two possibilities: a terrorist attack, and especially an attack by air, or a unique climatic event. Sadly, unique climatic events are happening regularly throughout the world and are more likely to happen in future because of the climate change that is afore us. The residents of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima were all assured of the absolute safety of the installations. What Weightman does is give false reassurances for commercial reasons, to suit the Government’s programme. This report has been produced in haste. We may regret at leisure shoring up this unnecessary, subsidised form of energy creation, which the public, because of their well-founded fears, might in future prevent from being built. It is right that we should look again at the lessons of Fukushima. We do not know what they are at the moment. We should pause and look to developing the safe renewables that are inexhaustible, British and sustainable.

Christopher Huhne: I respect the hon. Gentleman’s long-standing opposition to nuclear power and his concern, interest and expertise in these issues, but I think he has gone too far in impugning the integrity of the chief nuclear inspector. I am not a scientist, but I have had a number of meetings with Dr Weightman, and I am absolutely convinced that he is an entirely independent, well-respected professional. Indeed, he is so well respected that after I asked him to conduct the inquiry and make his recommendations, he was subsequently approached by the International Atomic Energy Agency to lead the international inquiry into Fukushima. It beggars belief not to recognise his standing in the international community and his independence. This is a fact-based and evidence-based report. My concern has always been to base our policy on the facts and the evidence, and I think that the report does that.
	The hon. Gentleman raised two specific points. He will find that I entirely agree with him on extreme weather events. It is absolutely essential that all our critical energy infrastructure needs to be proof against such events, not just the nuclear facilities. On page 97 of the report, he will find a useful table that summarises the extent to which our existing nuclear power stations are prepared against seismic hazards and flood heights. The hon. Gentleman’s description of our vulnerability on this front simply does not accord with the facts as set out in Dr Weightman’s report. First and foremost, we do not have the same reactor design. Secondly, we are not subject to earthquakes of anything like the same
	magnitude. The earthquake that so unfortunately hit Japan was 65,000 times stronger than the largest earthquake ever recorded in British territorial areas, which was centred on Dogger Bank in 1931. The situation is therefore entirely different. The hon. Gentleman will also see a discussion in the report about the vulnerability to tsunamis, and about whether the flood defence heights set out for each of the power stations on page 97 are adequate, and the conclusions stand.
	I entirely take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of security against terrorist attack. This Government have been very careful to improve the security arrangements in our nuclear facilities since we came into office a little over a year ago, and we will continue to do so.

Meg Hillier: We, too, welcome the report. Safety in the nuclear industry is of paramount importance, and it is worth noting that the UK has a good safety record. I welcome Mike Weightman’s view that we need to be continually vigilant in that regard. Nuclear is clearly crucial to security of supply in a low-carbon economy, especially in the light of yesterday’s decision. What is the Secretary of State now doing to ensure that the nuclear programme is still on track? When will we see new plant in this country? Will he be pressing ahead with the national policy statements over the summer, or will he wait for the final report in the autumn? Will the lifespan of the existing nuclear stations be extended as coal-fired power stations go off-line? Will he step up his efforts to boost renewable energy to fill the emerging energy gap? That is an area in which we have seen a lack of action from the Government. Finally, although the Secretary of State keeps denying the subsidy issue, to hide his embarrassment, will he acknowledge the need for market support to ensure that we have safe new nuclear in this country as soon as possible?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. Clearly, there has been a delay in the new nuclear programme preparations as a result of Dr Weightman’s report, and I signalled that we needed to do that when I asked Dr Weightman to look at this matter. I am determined, as are the whole Government, to base our evidence on fact, rather than on emotional, knee-jerk responses, which would be entirely inappropriate given the importance of the issues. We will bring forward the energy national policy statements as soon as we can, and I would very much hope that we will be able to catch up over the next few months and years following the delay. As I mentioned in the House yesterday, we have already begun work at Hinckley Point, where EDF is preparing the earthworks for the first of the new nuclear reactors. I am keen to deliver on the commitment in the coalition Government programme that new nuclear should, subject to the proviso that there is no public subsidy, have a place in our energy mix.
	I am not going to take any lectures on renewable energy from the hon. Lady. Our inheritance was to be 25th out of 27 European Union member states for installed renewable capacity. We are in the dunce’s corner as a result of 13 years of Labour policy, so the best commitment I can make is to say that over the next few years we are absolutely determined to be the fastest improving pupil in the class.
	On the hon. Lady’s final point, I set out in October a very clear statement about public subsidies. She has to recognise that there is an enormous difference; money such as that available under the European Union emissions trading scheme penalises activities that generate carbon and therefore implicitly subsidises activities that do not generate carbon, and is designed to correct what Lord Stern has described as
	“the greatest market failure of all time”.
	On that basis, we will continue to have policies that encourage low-carbon alternatives, but there will be no support to nuclear; it is a mature industry and there is no justification for extra support.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. There is considerable interest, but the House is under real time pressure today, with a statement to follow before the remaining stages of an important Bill. Economy in questions and answers alike is of the essence.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Having discussed the Fukushima problems with the Japanese, I know that they have concluded that not only did the reactor need to be built stronger to withstand the extreme climatic conditions, but that the primary weakness was that there was no secondary power source to circulate the water to keep the nuclear core cool. However, if they can design out those problems, they are perfectly happy in principle to build new nuclear power stations. Should we not take some lessons from those statements?

Christopher Huhne: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The lessons from Japan are extraordinary. First of all, the earthquake, however terrible and powerful, did not damage the reactors. The damage came through the subsequent tsunami, which flooded the secondary cooling system and made it inoperable. It shifted away the diesel supplies for the back-up generating plant. That is precisely why it is so important to look at these secondary systems and ensure that they are proof against any extreme weather events in this country.

Joan Ruddock: The Secretary of State referred to a raft of recommendations in the report, which he said the Government would accept. I have not read the report, but does he have any idea of the cost of those recommendations and who will pay for them?

Christopher Huhne: It is too early to assess the likely cost. I merely point out that, as far as any new nuclear programme is concerned, we are still at the stage where negotiations are going on between the regulators and the companies interested in providing new reactors, making it possible to incorporate into the design stage any changes that flow from Dr Weightman’s recommendations. That means that it will be substantially cheaper than it would have been if we were attempting to retrofit.

Andrew George: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on drawing the attention of the House to this report. On the alleged prematurity of drawing early conclusions from the Weightman report, will the Secretary of State reassure
	the House that he will keep this matter under review, given that, as the hon. Gentleman has said, this is very much a changing scenario in the Fukushima area?

Christopher Huhne: There may well be longer-term implications. The key conclusions of the interim report relate to the potential choice of sites, for example, and therefore the implications for national policy statements and the new nuclear programme. We now need to look at any implications for the generic design assessments and the design of new nuclear reactors. There may also be longer-term implications for civil contingencies, as Dr Weightman points out. We will very much keep those matters under review.

Caroline Lucas: Once again, the Secretary of State has claimed that new nuclear will not receive a public subsidy. However, in its report on electricity market reform, the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change says that the Government’s proposals are designed to give nuclear a substantial subsidy. Can the Secretary of State explain why there is such a difference of view between him and the Select Committee?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Lady will be aware, even after only a year in the House, that it is not the first time—[Interruption.] I was a colleague of the hon. Lady in the European Parliament for six years, and I have enormous respect for her. However, she will know from her experience both in the European Parliament and here that it is not entirely unknown for Ministers and Select Committees to reach different views on these issues. The key point is that there is a huge difference between offsetting the market failure—which, as Lord Stern pointed out, has been
	“the greatest market failure of all time”
	—and subsidies directed at a particular way of doing that.

Andrew Stephenson: I welcome what the Secretary of State said today. The British nuclear industry adheres to the highest standards of safety and excellence in engineering. To underline that, may I invite the Secretary of State, or a member of his team, to visit Graham Engineering in Colne, which manufactures nuclear waste drums, next time he is in Lancashire?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind invitation. We will certainly consider it, and we hope to see him in due course.

Barry Gardiner: I welcome the interim report. It would appear from the flooding risk assessments in conclusion 6 and annexe G that Dr Weightman may not have taken account of recent research at Delft university on eustatic sea level drop. I urge the Secretary of State to investigate that. As for the conclusion on MOX—mixed oxide—can he tell us exactly how the plutonium fallout relates to the testing of nuclear weapons? I believe that after the second world war Japan agreed not to undertake any nuclear weapons testing.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman has considerable expertise in this area. As a humble economist, I shall be happy to take away his questions and correspond with him on the answers.

Bob Blackman: What happened in Japan was clearly a disaster, but we should be considering both the design and the siting of new nuclear reactors. Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to assess whether the report will have any implications for the siting of the proposed new nuclear power stations?

Christopher Huhne: Dr Weightman makes clear in the report that he believes it will not.

Alan Whitehead: Will the Secretary of State be considering the implications of the additional expense of new nuclear building as a consequence of the Weightman recommendations? Will he also be considering the present target of bringing one new nuclear power station on stream every nine months between 2018 and 2025 in the light of those additional costs? How fundable does he expect the programme to be?

Christopher Huhne: As I said in my response to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), the cost impact may well be limited by the fact that the programme is at the design stage. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not propose to subsidise nuclear reactors or to invest public money in them. The funding will be up to private investors, who have shown no lack of desire to finance a new nuclear programme.

Therese Coffey: Every time I go home to my village of Westleton, I see the white dome of Sizewell B. My local energy company is very concerned about safety, and is not at all complacent. I am sure that it will welcome the additional review.
	On the matter of nuclear industry safety, the newly formed Office for Nuclear Regulation is part of the Health and Safety Executive, which reports to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would make sense to transfer responsibility for the ONR to his own Department, so that all nuclear matters can be—so to speak—under one roof?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and, in particular, for the benefit of her scientific background. The first read-out of our nuclear regulatory system produced very good results in comparison with those in other countries, and we were recently given a clean bill of health by the IAEA inspection team. The system is very independent: for example, in the event of a hazard, our regulators are able to shut down the facility immediately with no political sign-off. We have agreed that the Office for Nuclear Regulation will be set up statutorily as an independent body, which is entirely appropriate.

Angus Robertson: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge and respect the fact that planning consent on nuclear issues is devolved, and that under the newly re-elected Scottish National party Government, there will be no new nuclear power stations in Scotland?

Christopher Huhne: Yes.

Stephen Mosley: In parallel with the Weightman report, the Council of the European Union has requested that national regulators carry out stress tests on nuclear power stations. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the development of those tests, and on when the results are likely to be reported?

Christopher Huhne: The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), discussed the stress tests recently at an informal EU Energy Council meeting in Hungary, and during bilateral meetings with Commissioner Günther Oettinger. Good progress is being made in defining the tests, and I believe that we will be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

John Cryer: However much the Secretary of State tries to dress it up, is it not the case that the new carbon floor price represents a massive subsidy to the nuclear industry, possibly to the tune of £2 billion? Is that not why the nuclear industry has been lobbying for it?

Christopher Huhne: I return to the point that I made in answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). As Lord Stern said, we have experienced the greatest market failure of all time. We will be able to provide the incentives that will lead all of us, in the private and public sectors, to change our behaviour only if we offset that market failure by incorporating the costs. What there will not be is any subsidy for the nuclear industry.

Martin Horwood: I am sure my right hon. Friend will confirm that a magnitude 9 earthquake hit western Europe in its not too recent history, and that the consequent tsunami crossed territorial maritime boundaries and hit the United Kingdom. Given evacuation and compensation bills running into tens of billions of pounds, and sea contamination at 18,000 times the safe limit, is not the real lesson of Fukushima that in the event of an unpredictable catastrophe of any kind, nuclear is the worst possible power source to be in its path?

Christopher Huhne: There is an enormous difference between our vulnerability to seismic shocks and, sadly, that of the Japanese. That is a matter of record. There is a good discussion of the matter in Dr Weightman’s report, and I urge my hon. Friend to look at it.

Jim Shannon: I am not opposed to the nuclear industry at all, but has the Secretary of State or his Department been able to ascertain details of the deaths that have taken place recently? It has been indicated that there have been many deaths, but it has not been made clear whether the people who lived nearby were involved in repairs to nuclear reactors. This is not a case of dwelling on tragedy; it is a case of the lessons that we can learn. Can we learn any lessons from the Japanese authorities about how we can improve the safety of people who live close to nuclear reactors?

Christopher Huhne: It is far too early to reach conclusions in relation to the Fukushima accident, but there have been estimates on the basis of past accidents. A comparison of the casualty rates of different generating technologies appeared recently in the New Scientist. We are acutely aware of the issue, but, sadly, casualties and deaths are associated with almost all energy sources.

Mark Durkan: The Secretary of State may accept that some of us find the inspector's answers to the essential safety questions as predictable as those of Churchill the dog. As for the question of public subsidy, is he telling us that any additional infrastructural protections that arise as a result of the report will be funded not from the public purse but by the nuclear industry, and that the carbon floor price will not be adjusted in the light of those additional costs to provide additional subsidy?

Christopher Huhne: The considerations that are taken into account in setting the carbon price support—and, indeed, all our other measures—are related to our need to mitigate carbon emissions and have nothing to do with the costs of any particular technology. In that sense, we are technology-neutral; we want the lowest possible cost response in making sure we have a low-carbon economy. Whether that points to alternative technologies to nuclear will be a decision for the market, not the Government.

Nuclear Deterrent

Liam Fox: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on our nuclear deterrent programme.
	The House will be aware that we have been considering the next stage of investment—called initial gate—in the programme to deliver a successor to our current nuclear deterrent. This is the point in the Ministry of Defence’s procurement cycle at which we decide on broad design parameters, set out our plans for detailed system assessment and order any long lead items that might be required. Taking this action enables us to be sure that we will make the right decisions at the key investment stage, at the main gate, which for this submarine programme will be in 2016. I am announcing today that we have approved the initial gate investment and selected a submarine design that will be powered by a new generation of nuclear propulsion system—the pressurised water reactor 3—that will allow our submarines to deliver our nuclear deterrent capability well into the 2060s if required.
	At this milestone in the project, I think it is useful for me to remind the House of this Government’s policy on the nuclear deterrent. The first duty of any Government is to ensure the security of their people. The nuclear deterrent provides the ultimate guarantee of our national security, and for the past 42 years the Royal Navy has successfully operated continuous deterrent patrols to ensure just that. I pay tribute to the crews and support staff who ensure the continued success of deterrent operations, and I extend that tribute to the families of all those personnel, many of whom are regularly away from home for long periods.
	We assess that no state currently has both the intent and the capability to threaten the independence or integrity of the United Kingdom, but we cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge. We simply do not know how the international environment will change in the next few years, let alone the next 50 years; and as this House concluded in 2007 when it voted on whether the UK should start a programme to renew the deterrent, the time is simply not right to do away with it unilaterally. That is not to say that if the time is right we will not move away from nuclear weapons at some time in the future. Our long-term goal remains a world without them, and we are doing all we can to counter proliferation, to make progress on multilateral disarmament, and to build trust and confidence with nations across the globe.
	In this spirit, as part of the value-for-money study we reviewed carefully how we manage our deterrent programme, and concluded that we could take significant steps to demonstrate our commitment to disarmament: by reducing the number of warheads carried on each deterrent submarine from no more than 48 to no more than 40; by consequently reducing our overall stockpile of nuclear weapons from no more than 225 to no more than 180 in due course; and by giving a stronger assurance to non-nuclear weapon states in compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The value-for-money study delivered £3 billion of savings and deferrals over the next 10 years.
	The coalition agreement reflected both coalition parties’ commitment to a minimum credible nuclear deterrent, but also the desire of the Liberal Democrats to make
	the case for alternatives. As Secretary of State for Defence, I am absolutely clear that a minimum nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile delivery system and continuous at-sea deterrence is right for the United Kingdom and that it should be maintained, and that remains Government policy; but to assist the Liberal Democrats in making the case for alternatives, I am also announcing today the initiation of a study to review the costs, feasibility and credibility of alternative systems and postures. The study will be led by Cabinet Office officials overseen by the Minister for the Armed Forces. A copy of the terms of reference of the study will be placed in the House of Commons Library.
	As I have said, the Government have approved the initial gate for the nuclear deterrent successor programme. We have now agreed the broad outline design of the submarine, made some of the design choices—including the propulsion system and the common US-UK missile compartment—and the programme of work we need to start building the first submarine after 2016. We have also agreed the amount of material and parts we will need to buy in advance of the main investment decision.
	We expect the next phase of work to cost in the region of £3 billion. That is a significant sum, but I am confident that it represents value for money for the taxpayer, as every aspect of the programme has been carefully reviewed by MOD, Treasury and Cabinet Office officials. It will fund the programme that we need to conduct to make sure that we can bring the submarines into service on time. Overall, we assess that the submarine element of the programme will still cost within the £11 billion to £14 billion estimate set out in the 2006 White Paper, but these costs were estimated at 2006 prices, of course, and did not account for inflation. The equivalent sum today is £20 billion to £25 billion at out-turn, but it is important to recognise that there has been no cost growth in the programme since the House first considered the findings of the White Paper.
	Between now and main gate we expect to spend about 15% of the total value of the programme. That is entirely consistent with defence procurement guidance. The cost of long lead items is expected to amount to about £500 million, but it is not true to say that large parts of the build programme will have been completed by main gate. Although we are ordering some of the specialist components, that does not mean that we are locked into any particular strategy before main gate in 2016.
	I would like to focus for a moment on the matter of nuclear safety. There has been some ill-informed comment suggesting that our nuclear propulsion systems are not safe. That is simply not true. All our nuclear propulsion plants meet the stringent safety standards set out by the defence nuclear safety regulator and the Health and Safety Executive. However, we are developing a new design of submarine, and it is right that we take advantage of the opportunity that that affords to advance our policy of seeking continual improvement of nuclear safety. A new propulsion plant allows us to do that while also giving us the opportunity to improve the availability of propulsion systems and lower through-life support costs.
	I have announced a major step forward in this programme. We have some of the finest submarine builders in the world, and the approval of the next phase of work in the programme will secure the jobs of
	the highly skilled and professional work force already involved in it, as well as providing further opportunities for the engineers and apprentices of the future. However, both my Department and industry will have much to do to deliver this programme and to ensure both that we continue to maintain the sustainability of the submarine industry and that we improve performance and drive costs down through more efficient and inclusive working. I am confident that all sides will respond to this challenge.
	This is a programme of great national importance, so today I am placing in the Library of the House a report that sets out in detail the work that has been completed so far, the key decisions that I have presented to the House today, and the work that is required over the coming months and years. I believe that the decisions we have taken on our nuclear deterrent programme at initial gate are the right decisions for the country and that, as a result, future generations will continue to benefit from the security we have been so fortunate to enjoy.

Jim Murphy: I thank the Secretary of State both for his statement and for providing advance sight of it. I join him in paying tribute to all our forces operating our deterrent and their families, and to our skilled civilian work force who help to build and maintain our defence capabilities. Let me also stress once again that where the Government do the right thing on defence policy, we will, in the national interest, support them.
	Britain’s independent deterrent has been the cornerstone of our peace and security for over half a century, and our view is that, in today’s world, as long as there are other countries with such capability it is right that the UK retains an independent nuclear deterrent. In what will be a detailed debate on the military, technical and financial aspects of today’s announcement, there is a careful judgment to be made: whether we believe the threats posed to our nation and our interests to be such that we are more secure with the UK having our own independent deterrent. Most of us believe in a world free of nuclear weapons and a multilateral process to achieve that, whereas others take a different and unilateralist view, born of a myriad of traditions such as faith, passivism, political commitment or concerns about costs. I respect all those views but take a different approach.
	The previous Government met their commitment in the December 2006 White Paper to reduce the number of operationally available warheads to fewer than 160, meaning that the UK has reduced its nuclear arsenal by 75% since the end of the cold war. We welcome this Government’s announcements in the strategic defence and security review to reduce the number of operationally available warheads and the overall weapons stockpile. We will continue strongly to advocate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Its three pillars—non-proliferation, disarmament and the right to use civil nuclear power peacefully—provide the framework around which we should base our policy.
	The greatest nuclear threats we face today come from proliferation and unilateral armament, specifically from North Korea, which we know has a nuclear capability, and Iran, which we know has nuclear ambitions. The most robust response to those threats is for the UK to
	remain committed to the NPT and to be an active disarmer, alongside our allies and other nuclear weapons states. Maintaining our independent deterrent as part of international non-proliferation efforts is therefore vital in enabling us to combat the threats we face at home, and to sustain regional and global security.
	I now wish to deal with some specific questions about the review announced today. In 2007, Parliament took the view that it would support the position set out by the previous Government in the 2006 White Paper of replacing the current Vanguard class submarines and maintaining an independent, continuous at-sea submarine-based nuclear deterrent. The decision then was based on evidence and military advice. The Government have announced today that as we move towards main gate there is logic in looking again at some of the defence capability and financial issues relating to how best to maintain a credible, minimum, independent nuclear deterrent. It is important that this is an open process. What is crucial is that the process is evidence-based and in the interests of national security, and that it is not, on occasion, driven by the dynamic within the coalition parties.
	I wish to ask the Secretary of State some specific questions. Will the review look at the Government’s procurement policy in this Parliament for materials for successor submarines? Will the review look at international co-operation over nuclear policy, including deeper co-operation with France above and beyond the agreements made in the UK-France defence co-operation treaty, which we welcomed? Finally, on the review, can he confirm that the Minister for the Armed Forces is a one-man ministerial review team?
	It was announced in the SDSR that initial gate was due to take place by the end of 2010. Can the Secretary of State tell us the reason for the delay and how much it will add to the cost of the programme over its lifetime? He said there were £500 million of costs for long lead items. Can he say what these items are? Can he say what the total cost of the replacement programme will be, and over what period? He made some comments about that, but can he also say from which budgets the overall costs will be met? Can he say whether both the running and construction costs will come from the core defence budget, and whether he has any estimate on the impact that may have on other equipment programmes?
	The SDSR stated that the Government would reduce the costs of the successor programme by a total of £3.2 billion over the next 10 years. Can the Secretary of State say whether that takes into account the £1.2 billion to £1.4 billion additional costs of extending the life of the Vanguard class submarines in service until 2028? What reassurances has he been given that extending the life of the Vanguard class submarines is indeed safe? Can he make it clear how much is being spent on the new PWR3 reactors, and over what period?
	In conclusion, Labour remains committed to a minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent, and we welcome the announcements made today by the Government. This decision will have an impact on our nation and beyond for decades to come, and it is crucial that government find additional ways to involve Parliament in the decision-making process. Labour will always do what is right for the UK’s defence and national interests, and the country would expect the Government to continue to do the same.

Liam Fox: I shall do my best to answer the long list of questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. I shall check Hansard, and if I have missed any I shall write to him with further details.
	May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the Opposition’s support for the principle of this policy? Cross-party support adds greatly to the credibility of our deterrence policy, which is an essential part of the protection of our country. He rightly says that the major proliferation risk at the moment comes from North Korea and Iran. We do not know whether other countries will join in that so, as he says, it is entirely prudent to retain a minimum, independent, credible nuclear deterrent for the United Kingdom.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions about costs. The costs of the various items were set out in the 2006 White Paper, when they were broadly split into: £11 billion to £14 billion for the submarine; £2 billion to £3 billion for the warhead; and £2 billion to £3 billion for infrastructure. We believe that those costs are still contained in the programme itself. He asked specifically about long lead items, on which, as I said in my statement, approximately £500 million will be spent. They include: the specialised high-grade steel; the main boat systems, such as the computer systems, hydraulic systems and atmospheric systems, the generators and the communications systems; and specialist components, including steam generators and test rigs for the propulsion plants.
	On our wider international co-operation, we continue to work, as we set out in our treaty with France, on the capabilities required constantly to maintain the safety of our warheads. There are no plans for collaboration on deployment of a deterrent that goes beyond the treaty that has been signed. Agreement with the United States on the major parameters of the jointly developed common missile compartment design, which will be capable of carrying the Trident D5 missiles and any replacement once the D5 reaches the end of its life in the 2040s, has been a major part of our cost containment during the process.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the overall costs of the programme. As I said, £3 billion of those will fall between now and 2016. The costs for the years that fall within the current comprehensive spending review are met by the current defence budget settlement. He asked about the life and costs of the Vanguard class submarines. Our assessment when we undertook the value-for-money study was that we could extend Vanguard’s life to 2028 without having huge additional maintenance and upgrade costs, and while preserving our continuous at-sea deterrent—CASD. To go beyond 2028 would almost certainly have huge cost implications and might have implications for CASD that we are not willing to undertake. Those were the reasons we took the overall decision, and I hope that I have answered the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions.

Menzies Campbell: My right hon. Friend is well known for his independence and openness of mind, as was shown by his recently published correspondence with the Prime Minister. May we take it that the conclusions of the study to which he has referred will be published? Given that independence of mind, may we also take it that if the study produces credible procurement and policy alternatives, he will take proper account of them?

Liam Fox: I have always thought that our independence of mind was why we were sent to the House of Commons in the first place, but perhaps I was mistaken. Because of the nature of the content of the report, most of it will remain unpublished, but I will consider whether its conclusions might be published without in any way prejudicing the security of the project itself. As I have just outlined, the Government are committed to the replacement of the Trident system, and the spend will go ahead through the rest of this Parliament.

Bob Ainsworth: On costs, does the Secretary of State accept that since the election two things, effectively, have gone on? Savings have been made as a result of the joint missile compartment and the reduction in the number of warheads, but those savings have been completely wiped out by the political decision demanded by the Liberal Democrats to extend the procurement period beyond the next election. I would have thought that those political decisions have led to costs approaching £2.5 billion, if one takes into account the necessity to build an additional Astute class submarine just to keep Barrow going. One might think that in the circumstances faced by the Secretary of State this might not have been his priority, what with all the other cuts he was making and the additional maintenance round that will now be needed for the existing fleet. How much more additional cost will there be as a result of the separate review? In a Department in which we are bearing down on manpower and reducing the skills available, we are now applying the skill base to an ongoing, second round assessment and review.

Liam Fox: The costs of the alternatives review are met from existing departmental budgets and no additional costs will be associated with it. As I have said, when we take into account the different developments, including the fact that we have taken costs out of the missile compartment, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly says, and have reassessed the infrastructure required, we believe that there has been no additional net cost to the programme on the 2006 prices.

James Arbuthnot: Whatever my right hon. Friend’s openness of mind, does he personally agree that the real choice is between a ballistic system and no nuclear deterrent at all? Although there are perfectly respectable arguments for both propositions, the idea of having a vulnerable cruise-based system misses the point of nuclear deterrence altogether.

Liam Fox: I have made it clear on a number of occasions why I believe that having a ballistic, submarine-based system providing continuous at-sea deterrence is the only way to guarantee the level of deterrence that this country has come to regard as the minimum credible level. A number of disadvantages relate to any cruise system, including the fact that the missiles are more vulnerable to anti-missile defences, that they are slower and that there are cost implications because we would require more of them and more platforms from which to launch them. I am very relaxed about any consideration of the alternatives because I believe that anyone who has looked at the criteria and the information behind the 2006 White Paper will rapidly come to the conclusion that if we want a minimum credible nuclear deterrent for the United Kingdom, this system, which will be provided by the replacement Trident system, is the best and in fact the only credible one.

Jeremy Corbyn: This is a very depressing statement today. First, the Secretary of State gave us no indication of the long-term total costs of the system—he said only that £5 billion would be committed now. Will it cost £70 billon in total, or more? We should be told. Secondly, 184 countries manage without their own nuclear weapons, and most countries see no need whatsoever even to think about getting them. We are spending a vast amount of money on a status symbol that will make the world not a safer place but a more dangerous one. The Secretary of State’s arguments about deterrence are nonsense because those arguments could be used for any country in the world. Most choose to take active steps to bring about a nuclear-free world; this country should do the same.

Liam Fox: I appreciate the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman’s views; I just profoundly disagree with them. As I have said, we assess that the costs have not changed from the 2006 basic programme. I also said that, taking inflation into account, we expect them to be some £20 billion to £25 billion at out-turn. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong: there is a growing nuclear threat in the world from such countries as North Korea and Iran. Who knows what other countries might be trying to develop nuclear technology and weaponisation? Those countries pose a wider risk and our nuclear deterrence is not just the UK’s independent deterrent but part of the wider NATO nuclear umbrella. It is important that the reductions that have been announced as regards warheads and stockpiles are not only within the letter but within the spirit of the NPT and set a clear direction for future Government policy.

Julian Lewis: I am really rather worried that my right hon. Friend is in danger of inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is really quite a decent chap. If the Secretary of State, like me, had had the experience of watching the hon. Gentleman address the Liberal Democrat conference on this subject, he would have seen that it was indistinguishable from a CND revivalist meeting. How is it fair to the Minister for the Armed Forces to confront him on the one hand with serious arguments about why Trident is the only option while on the other hand requiring him to go back to the Liberal Democrats and tell them that unavoidable conclusion?

Liam Fox: I rather fear that my hon. Friend is a little too late. Having made my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces sit through some 57 hours of the strategic defence and security review, I feel I have already inflicted a cruel and unusual punishment on him. I refer my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) back to the advice he gave me when we were in opposition, which was that we should never be afraid to have the most rigorous look at alternative systems. When one considers the evidence, the costings and the threats, one inevitably comes to the conclusion that a submarine-based continuous at-sea deterrent based on the Trident system will be the best protection for the United Kingdom. I take him at his word and I am not at all afraid to consider the alternatives.

Joan Ruddock: Given the phenomenal cost of this weapons system and given that we will commit future generations to it by these
	actions, I believe that people have the right to understand whether this weapons system can be used. What are the circumstances in which Trident would be used? Will the Secretary of State tell the House?

Liam Fox: This has always been at the heart of the deterrent argument. The whole point is that there is uncertainty about the circumstances in which the United Kingdom would respond, and the system therefore acts as a proper deterrent. We would hope that such weapons would never have to be used, because they would deter any threat against us. That is the principle and the core of the issue, and it is something that the unilateralists never understood.

Peter Tapsell: Without, obviously, asking the Secretary of State to go into any sort of detail, will he make absolutely certain that the phasing out of Nimrod will not make our submarines more vulnerable to counter-attack?

Liam Fox: We have a number of ways of ensuring the protection of our deterrent and, as my hon. Friend says, he would not expect me to go into detail. As for the Nimrod MRA4 programme, to which he might be referring, I must remind him that that capability was not available to us because the programme was already nine years late and the aircraft had not flown other than in one test that was abandoned for safety reasons. I am afraid that the failure of procurement over a number of years made that capability unavailable today.

Angus Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement. He is well aware that majority opinion in Scotland is opposed to Trident, yet the UK Government are planning to spend billions of pounds of Scottish taxpayers’ money on it. Scotland’s Churches, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Scottish civic society are also opposed to Trident, but the MOD wants to base these weapons of mass destruction in Scotland while cutting conventional defence. Scotland’s parliamentarians have not voted for this. What kind of respect agenda is this from the London Government, who totally ignore Scottish opinion and go ahead anyway? The Secretary of State is making the most eloquent case for Scottish independence.

Liam Fox: It would be hard to make a less eloquent case for Scottish independence! It is important that we recognise that defence was retained in the UK Parliament in the devolution settlement and that decisions about national security are taken by this House of Commons. Given the attitudes of the Scottish National party, the whole of the United Kingdom should be grateful.

James Gray: It is of course always open for any political party or any part of any political party to take a different view from Her Majesty’s Government. Can the Secretary of State think of any precedent whatsoever for public money, ministerial time and resources being used to bolster and examine the manifesto commitment of one particular party that might or might not be part of the coalition?

Liam Fox: There are realities of coalition government that simply have to be faced. As part of the coalition agreement, we made it very clear that we would continue
	and move to the decisions I have announced today, but we also made it clear that the Liberal Democrats, as one of the coalition partners, would be free to make the case for alternatives. We have lived up to that commitment today.

John Woodcock: The Secretary of State knows that approval of initial gate is overdue and it is good that more work can finally go ahead, but let me be clear: he has placed yet another review on the future of the deterrent in the hands of a Minister from the Liberal Democrats—a party that is predisposed to rejecting the only option that makes any sense. How can the Secretary of State give us confidence that he will prevent his colleagues, from the Prime Minister down, from playing politics on this issue and that he will back Barrow so that it can deliver for the nation?

Liam Fox: What I am making clear today is that for the rest of this Parliament we will be going ahead with the replacement programme. We are setting out the budget, the areas of policy and the industrial implications for doing so. As I have said, it is part of the coalition agreement that the Liberal Democrats are able to look at these alternatives. Having looked, as Secretary of State since we came to office, at all the alternatives in great detail, including the costs and the implications for defence, I remain absolutely confident that the study is very likely to come to exactly the same conclusion as the 2006 White Paper, but we have given a commitment and we are carrying that out, through Cabinet Office officials, for our Liberal Democrat partners in the coalition. We made an agreement and we are going to honour it.

Bob Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the independent nuclear deterrent is being used all the time because it is, by definition, a deterrent to potential enemies? The firing of the weapon would be a disaster of course, but the point of its possession is to prevent that.

Liam Fox: I cannot fault my hon. Friend’s logic. He understands the whole basis of the concept of deterrence. Of course, the deterrent is designed to protect the United Kingdom from the threat of nuclear blackmail, but we still have to work hard to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other parts of the world as a complementary, not an alternative, policy.

Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State said in a small phrase in his statement that “if the time is right”, we could move away from nuclear weapons. Given the strategic arms agreement between the United States and Russia and the successful outcome of the non-proliferation review conference last year, neither of which he has mentioned, when does he think the time will be right to put British nuclear weapons into international disarmament multilateral negotiations?

Liam Fox: In making reductions that go further than necessary we are, as I have already said, not only within the letter of the NPT but well within the spirit of it. The reductions that we have made in going ahead with this programme show that we are committed to seeing lower levels of nuclear weapons worldwide. As long as the threat to the United Kingdom remains, it is prudent for us to maintain a minimum credible nuclear deterrent.
	How big that credible deterrent is will obviously be reviewed as a matter of policy, but as long as it is required and as long as this Government are in office we will retain it.

James Morris: The Secretary of State said that it is difficult for us to predict events that will happen in the future, but what we do know is that we have instability in Pakistan and a nuclear-ambitious Iran and that North Korea is developing further nuclear capability. Does he agree that it would be strategically naive for the UK Government to make any decisions that would prevent us from being able to deter threats and emerging threats in the world in future?

Liam Fox: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I wonder how many in the House predicted the Arab spring, or what was going to happen in Libya. We have little ability to predict what is happening in the strategic security environment and as long as the threat remains there and, in particular, as long as nuclear proliferation continues in states such as North Korea and Iran, the Government simply will not gamble with the future security of generations of British people.

Nick Smith: May I press the Secretary of State on his decision to introduce a study to assist the Liberal Democrats in making the case for alternatives? What will really be the extra cost of this new study?

Liam Fox: I repeat the answer I have already given to this question. I have already said that the costs are contained within departmental budgets. The study will be led by Cabinet Office officials, there is more than sufficient expertise on this subject, believe me, inside the Ministry of Defence, and ministerial oversight will be provided by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces.

Rehman Chishti: May I first welcome the statement by the Secretary of State? Does he agree that the United Kingdom’s capability as a nuclear-armed state helps it to have a seat on the international top table and helps with global policy?

Liam Fox: I do not think that having a nuclear deterrent does anything to diminish the status of the United Kingdom, but our ability to influence world events is a combination of a range of things including military power, economic power and diplomatic power, all of which we exercise in the furtherance of our national interests.

Thomas Docherty: The Secretary of State has demonstrated that he is a principled and honourable man. Does he therefore understand the concern on both sides of the House, and indeed in the country, that given the decision not to have carrier capability for more than a decade, as the First Sea Lord confirmed last week to the Select Committee on Defence, we could, for financial reasons, have no continuous deterrent at sea because the decision will be postponed for so long that it becomes financially unviable?

Liam Fox: I am not entirely sure that I grasped the essence of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We will have continuous at-sea deterrence because this programme
	will seamlessly move into the replacement programme in 2028. The whole point is that we have continuous at-sea deterrence to give us a credible deterrent for the country.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the main plank of deterrence is mutually assured destruction, but that for MAD to work one has to be sane, and the countries that want to acquire nuclear weapons today are very different from the countries that have them and had them in the cold war? Does he agree that the Government, NATO and other western nations should revisit the strategic defence initiative so that we have the ability to destroy nuclear weapons if they are unleashed from such regimes?

Liam Fox: The point of our nuclear deterrent is to deter a nuclear threat to the United Kingdom from wherever that threat occurs. I make the point again that it is not a choice between having a nuclear deterrent and having a stronger non-proliferation policy—we need both if we are to have a safer Britain and a safer global environment.

Caroline Lucas: The Secretary of State rightly says that the “first duty of any Government is to ensure the security of their people”. If it really is the case, as he also says, that the “nuclear deterrent provides the ultimate guarantee of our national security”, does he accept the logic of his own argument, which means that all nations should seek to acquire nuclear weapons to ensure the security of their people, and does he look forward to a world in which every nation is nuclear-armed?

Liam Fox: I look forward to a world in which the nuclear threat is being reduced, and we are reducing our nuclear stockpile as part of taking that process forward. I hope that we will see a time when fewer countries will want to enter into nuclear proliferation. We have an international non-proliferation treaty for exactly that purpose, and the status of the United Kingdom and other countries was recognised in that treaty when it was drawn up. In putting forward the proposals we believe not only that we are providing a safe future for the United Kingdom by maintaining our deterrent, but that in reducing the number of warheads we have, we are setting our direction very clearly towards a world in which we hope to see the elimination, over time, of this wider threat from weapons of mass destruction.

Martin Horwood: I welcome the study of alternatives. It would be a shame to waste that initial investment should a subsequent Government decide to cancel Trident, having read the report, at the main decision point in 2016—I suspect that during the 2015 election campaign that is what the Liberal Democrats will argue should happen—so can the Secretary of State confirm that new propulsion systems and other technology could be used in submarines deployed in other contexts and not just as part of a Trident programme?

Liam Fox: There is a certain read-across from the Astute to the Trident replacement and the UK should certainly take great pride in our technical capabilities in the submarine arena. However, the hon. Gentleman rather
	jumps the gun in determining what his party’s position will be at the next election before the study on alternatives has been carried out.

Cathy Jamieson: Does the Secretary of State understand that many people will find it shocking that we are talking about value for money in the context of weapons of mass destruction, for which no moral case can be made? May I press him further on the point made earlier in relation to deterrence? Surely if something is to act as a deterrent, there must be a reasonable assumption that at some stage it may be used. What are the circumstances in which the Secretary of State would sanction the use of nuclear weapons? If he cannot give a straight answer to that, is it not time for the UK to move towards disarming and not to replace Trident?

Liam Fox: I have never accepted the arrogant attitude that there is no moral case for a deterrent. I can appreciate that there are arguments for and against, but the argument that only one side has any moral legitimacy I have always found rather repugnant. We believe that protecting the 60 million people of the United Kingdom from the threat of nuclear blackmail from wherever that threat may come is not only morally justifiable, but is the duty of the Government.

Stephen Metcalfe: I, too, welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend and his full commitment to future investment in our nuclear deterrent. What assurances can he give me that that investment will be spread as widely as possible across the UK to make sure that companies in my constituency, South Basildon and East Thurrock, have an opportunity to benefit from this announcement?

Liam Fox: We will spread the costs wherever we are achieving our objective industrially, which is sustainability, secured by getting the costs down and the performance up. I am sure that if my hon. Friend has any specific examples of companies that would like to bid for the work, the Ministry of Defence will be only too happy to listen.

Andrew Love: The Secretary of State seems to believe that simply by reducing the number of weapons, he is complying with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Does he accept that we need to do far more in that regard if we are to have any influence in Iran, North Korea and all the other states that we do not know about, which are developing nuclear weapons?

Liam Fox: I am just a little stumped by the logic of that. We announced some time ago that we are reducing the number of warheads carried per submarine, the number that are operationally available, and our total stockpile. Countries such as Iran and North Korea are continuing with their proliferation policy, so there does not seem to be any correlation between what we are doing—making those gestures—which goes well beyond the letter of what is required of us under non-proliferation, and any ability of the rest of the world to predict what rogue regimes such as North Korea will do. As long as that threat remains, and as long as proliferation remains a threat to the United Kingdom, we must maintain the protection of our people.

Sheila Gilmore: The Secretary of State indicated that the costs between now and 2016 were containable within his budget for the spending review period, but there have been widespread reports in recent days that he is looking for further cuts in his budget to meet his commitments. Can he reassure us that the costs can be met without detriment to the rest of the defence budget?

Liam Fox: The short answer is yes, but what I said was that a proportion of the costs that I outlined today, which go to 2016, fall within the current comprehensive spending review period. I am happy to give the hon. Lady the reassurance that the cost of that element which falls within that CSR period is already met by the departmental budget.

Jim Shannon: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. He mentioned that the programme was of great national importance for the whole United Kingdom. A majority of our great nation want our national defences to be strong, and a nuclear deterrent is clearly a core part of that. It is also clear that we need to work alongside our European colleagues to have a strong deterrent. What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with them to ensure that the cost of maintaining the deterrent falls on the shoulders not only of the United Kingdom, but of some of our European colleagues?

Liam Fox: Clearly, the costs of the British deterrent fall upon the British taxpayer, the costs of the French deterrent fall upon the French taxpayer and the costs of the US deterrent upon the US taxpayer. There is a great deal of work that we can do together to minimise costs. We have worked with the US on the missile system, we have worked on the common compartment, and we have worked with the French on reducing the costs of ensuring the safety of our warheads. When it comes to the consensus in the House and the country, it is fair to pause and reflect that at the general election, the two largest parties supported the replacement of the Trident programme. The Liberal Democrats supported the concept of minimum credible deterrent, so any idea that the public have not given their assent to this in principle is to fly in the face of the reality of the ballot box.

Points of Order

Liz Kendall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any indication that the Prime Minister will return to the House and correct the record in relation to the role of Mr Mark Britnell under the previous Government? Mr Britnell was chief executive of an NHS hospital and then a civil servant in the Department of Health, not an adviser to the Labour Government, as the Prime Minister claimed earlier today.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. Mr Britnell is known to me, but I think the hon. Lady is seeking to continue the debate and argument. She may earn her spurs on her side by doing so, but it is not a point of order on which I can rule.

Grahame Morris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice in relation to a procedural matter. Would it be in order for the Health and Social Care Bill to be recommitted to a further Public Bill Committee, in light of the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments last night, when he said that it would be in order to remove one third of the 299 clauses in the Bill—those that relate to the new economic regulator, Monitor?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct in supposing that it would be procedurally possible for the Bill to be recommitted to a Public Bill Committee, but the handling of the Bill is the Government’s responsibility; it is not mine.

Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just heard a lengthy statement from the Secretary of State for Defence about the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system. I was not aware of any remarks by the right hon. Gentleman about when Parliament would debate that, when there would be a vote on it, and when Parliament could fully consider it, as a great deal of money appears to be committed to the project.

Mr Speaker: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I say that I think he has given the House advance notice of his intention to be present in the Chamber tomorrow for business questions, for that will present an excellent opportunity for him to make his request.

Road Safety

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Alan Beith: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make provision requiring the fitting of equipment to heavy goods vehicles to eliminate driver blind spots; to make other provisions relating to the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill is about saving the lives of vulnerable road users, particularly cyclists but also pedestrians and others. The particular vulnerability that it deals with is caused by blind spots on heavy goods vehicles. It is a problem that is particularly acute in city traffic, especially at junctions. The problem is likely to increase as cycling becomes ever more popular as a means of getting to work in urban areas and for leisure, and as lorries get bigger.
	A daughter of a constituent of mine lost her life in a collision with a tipper truck. Eilidh Cairns was cycling from her home in Kentish Town to her work in Chiswick. She had cycled this route daily for three years and she was an experienced cyclist. She was caught up under the wheels of the lorry, probably because its front bumper made contact with her rear wheel. The coroner described it as a
	“terrible, terrible tragedy that unfortunately is not an uncommon occurrence here in London where a cyclist and a large vehicle come into contact with each other, and invariably the cyclist will suffer very serious or fatal injuries… It’s a huge problem that I think the Government, cyclists and safer cycling groups are going to be grappling with for quite a considerable time”.
	The purpose of the Bill is to encourage the Government to grapple with that problem in order to safe lives, and using mirrors or technical means to eliminate drivers’ blind spots on HGVs is a vital weapon in doing so.
	After her death, Eilidh’s family and friends set up the “See me, Save me” campaign, which has gained massive support. It shares a name with a motorcycling safety campaign that similarly seeks to secure greater road safety. In the European Parliament, my colleague Fiona Hall MEP tabled a written declaration on the issue and well over half of all MEPs—more than 400—have put their names to it. This means that the Commission must produce proposals to deal with the issue, probably by revising an existing directive so that newly registered HGVs will have effective means of eliminating blind spots, emergency braking and lane departure warning systems.
	Here at home, the Transport Secretary last week published a road safety consultation document with a short section on vehicle technology. It stressed a preference for voluntary compliance rather than regulation. On some issues I would share that preference, but on this issue I think regulation is needed, first because the problem remains so serious, and secondly to ensure that hauliers who want to invest in good technology do not feel that they will be undercut by those who are unwilling to do so.
	In fact, the costs to a haulage business of involvement in a fatal accident are substantial, including the loss of a driver’s services for a long period, the disrupting
	insurance, legal and other costs, and potentially compensation costs. The cost to the economy is massive. According to the Department for Transport, fatal accidents cost on average more than £1,750,000. The cost of better mirrors and technical additions would be very small in comparison to the huge cost of a new HGV. Fitting such technology to older vehicles could at least be achieved on a gradual basis, at a cost of around £700 on present estimates.
	Clearly it is best for these measures to be introduced across Europe, because HGVs travel all over the continent and our roads see numerous haulage vehicles from other European countries. For British hauliers, it would be much better if their competitors from continental Europe were subject to the same requirements as they are. Although the Bill would give our Transport Secretary powers to make regulations for the fitting of equipment to vehicles, its underlying purpose is to demonstrate that Parliament wants to see the British Government actively involved in securing Europe-wide regulations and not holding back. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has responsibility for roads, has been present throughout my speech to hear this case.
	Other safety provisions could be incorporated in the Bill, and it will be drafted in such a way as to allow this. The details of its provisions can be examined carefully if the House allows it to be brought in and gives it a fair wind. I have found very ready support across the House for the Bill; the list of sponsors was filled up to the limit within an hour or so of it becoming known to the House and many more hon. and right hon. Members would have liked to add their names. The all-party group on cycling has been particularly supportive of the campaign, as have a number of newspapers—The Independent, the Evening Standard and the Newcastle Journal have all given it substantial coverage.
	Coroners’ verdicts often refer to the deaths of cyclists in the circumstances I have described as accidental deaths, which is much resented by many of the families involved. They feel very strongly that “accident” implies something that was beyond control or prevention. It also seems to preclude culpability where a driver has ignored the fact that he cannot see an area of road on to which his vehicle is encroaching. RoadPeace, the national charity for road crash victims, is pressing for the word “accident” not to be used in future for road crashes or collisions. The case that we are putting today is that many collisions that lead to the deaths of cyclists and other vulnerable road users could be prevented. We should not miss the opportunity to call for practical measures to save lives.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Sir Alan Beith, Dr Julian Huppert, Mr James Arbuthnot, Meg Munn, Naomi Long, Sir Peter Bottomley, Andrea Leadsom, Jeremy Corbyn, Tom Brake, Mr Don Foster, Fabian Hamilton and Natascha Engel present the Bill.
	Sir Alan Beith accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 191).

Localism Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allocated Day]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee.
	[Relevant documents:  The Second Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee, Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: a planning vacuum?, HC 517; Written evidence submitted to the Communities and Local Government Committee on the General Power of Competence, HC 931; The Thir d Report from the Environmental  Audit Committee, Sustainable Development in the Localism Bill, HC 799. ]

New Clause 21
	 — 
	Tax

‘Schedule [Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions] (provision about tax in connection with certain transfers and transfer schemes) has effect.’.—(Robert Neill.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Bob Neill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new schedule 2—‘Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions.
	Government new clause 20—Authority may be required to carry on commercial activities through a taxable body.
	Amendment 351,in clause 158, page138,line45, at end insert—
	‘London Housing and Regeneration Board
	“333ZDA London Housing and Regeneration Board
	(1) The Authority must establish a London Housing and Regeneration Board within six months of the Localism Act 2011 being passed.
	(2) The London Housing and Regeneration Board is to consist of such numbers (being not less than six) as the Authority may from time to time appoint.
	(3) The Authority must appoint one of the members as the person with the function of chairing the London Housing and Regeneration Board.
	(4) In appointing a person to be a member, the Authority—
	(a) must have regard to the desirability of appointing a person who has experience of, and shown some capacity in, a matter relevant to the exercise of the functions set out in this Chapter,
	(b) must be satisfied that the person will have no financial or other interest likely to affect prejudicially the exercise of the person’s functions as a member, and
	(c) must ensure that at least 50 per cent. of the number of members on the Board are appointed representatives of London boroughs.
	(5) In exercising its housing and regeneration functions and powers subsequent to the enactment of this Chapter the Authority must consult and obtain agreement from the London Housing and Regeneration Board.”’.
	Government amendments 205 to 210 and 212.
	Amendment 352,in clause 168, page148,line7, at end insert—
	‘(e) a majority of those London borough councils whose borough contains any part of the designated development area agree to the designation.’.
	Government amendments 213 to 215, 218 to 220, 223, 253 to 255 and 265.

Bob Neill: We are dealing with part 7 of the Bill, which relates to governance in Greater London, and part 3, which relates largely to business rate matters and, I am delighted to say, has not proven controversial. I hope that part 7 will not detain us terribly long either, as a good degree of consensus was achieved in Committee and there are just one or two matters that it is necessary to debate further.
	I will start with new clause 21, the lead provision in the group, and the majority of associated matters. With the exception of only two topics that I will come to in a moment, the rest of the group comprises a large number of technical amendments relating to two tax issues. Although the new clause is the first new clause listed on the amendment paper, it is not really the natural starting point, so perhaps I will be forgiven if I leapfrog over it to new clause 20, which will amend the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and require the Greater London authority to undertake certain specified activities for a commercial purpose through a taxable body. It relates to the transfer of a large number of functions of the Housing Corporation in London to the Mayor, to the movement of the London Development Agency into the GLA’s main body, and to the establishment of mayoral development corporations in London. All of those potentially involve commercial activity, so we have to get the tax treatment right.

Mr Speaker: Order. It might be helpful if I interrupt to make the point to the House that, although that is indeed the lead new clause, the order in which representatives on the Treasury Bench deal with matters is entirely a matter for them. Members can come in on such matters within the grouping as they think fit.

Bob Neill: I am grateful, Mr Speaker.
	I will encapsulate the technicalities as swiftly as I can, but it suffices to say that these amendments are necessary to ensure that those commercial activities that are undertaken by the GLA are done so within a taxable environment. As a local authority, it would normally have tax-exempt status, but some of those activities are not of a local authority nature but more of a commercial nature and so have to be properly taxable. There is a long-established tax principle in that regard to ensure a level playing field between the public and private sectors in relation to commercial activities. That is particularly important in this case because the GLA will inherit, as a consequence of our devolution measures, a significant portfolio of land interests, some of which operate on a commercial basis and are subject to corporation tax and capital gains tax. It is not a new state of affairs. Section 157 of the 1999 Act made like provision in relation to the activities of Transport for London. That is the background to what we are doing.
	In a nutshell, the list of specified commercial activities, which will be set out in a detailed order, will be worked up by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the
	GLA during the passage of the Bill, but essentially the activities of the London Development Agency and Homes and Communities Agency will be transferred to the Mayor. That is how new clause 20 kicks off the whole proposition.
	New clause 21 introduces new schedule 2, which will neutralise certain tax consequences—the other side of the coin—that might otherwise arise from the transfer of various property, rights and liabilities from the Office for Tenants and Social Landlords, the Homes and Communities Agency and the London Development Agency to other public bodies. There is a measure to enable the Treasury to make similar tax provisions for future mayoral development corporations. As we know, one is proposed, and we will come to that in a moment, but the provision will technically permit others to be set up and, therefore, embrace properly, within a legal framework, all those related activities.
	Essentially, every Government new clause and amendment with which we are concerned relates to that process. The Opposition have tabled a couple of amendments, which I can deal with conveniently either now or in due course once they have been spoken to, but suffice it to say that the only Government amendments that do not form part of the tax treatment provisions are amendments 212 and 213. They relate to the mayoral development corporation, which is proposed for establishment, and I hope that we can find some common ground, because in Committee there was a discussion and Members generally accepted as desirable both the idea that the Mayor of London should have the power to establish a mayoral development corporation, and the current Mayor’s intention to establish such a corporation broadly relating to the Olympic park in east London.
	The provision is more widely cast than that, for good reasons, and it will permit the establishment of other mayoral development corporations. None is envisaged by the current Mayor and I am not conscious of any envisaged by potential Mayors, either, but it would be on the books for the future.
	The question that arose, and which the Government seek to address with the proposed changes, was what are the appropriate means of holding the Mayor to account for mayoral development corporation proposals. If a future Mayor—I am sure that it would not be the current Mayor—were to come up with a proposal for a mayoral development corporation which was thought objectionable, by what means would a control or brake be put on that process?

Stewart Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the anecdotal evidence from the Thames Gateway is that the level of accountability and the funding streams were often indistinct, that there was an insufficient level of democratic accountability through boroughs outside London, London boroughs and the mayoralty, and that the proposed changes before us seek to rectify that situation?

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a history to the incremental growth of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation,
	which did not prove satisfactory, and as he knows the Government are looking at the matter in a different context.
	We seek to introduce proper accountability to the London mayoral development corporation. There was a debate about whether it would be appropriate to give the boroughs a veto, and that possibility has foreshadowed an Opposition amendment. The Government have reflected on the matter, and we take the view that it probably is appropriate and sensible to include a check and balance in the system, but we conclude that, because the Mayor of London is a strategic authority and charged with the economic development policy and oversight for London, the check and balance should not be through any one London borough or group of London boroughs, as they have their own important role, are in any event the statutory consultees on these matters and would have the opportunity to put their views forward anyway.
	It is more appropriate if the check and balance mirrors other checks and balances in the GLA’s governance scheme, so that the London assembly, which is democratically elected and represents all Londoners, is able to veto a proposal for a mayoral development corporation by a two-thirds qualified majority vote.

Gavin Barwell: I am grateful to the Government for accepting the approach that I outlined in Committee in response to an amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). Will my hon. Friend confirm that, because of the two-thirds majority to which he refers and the GLA’s electoral system, one merit of the proposal is that it will effectively ensure the need for cross-party consensus behind any MDC designation?

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I am grateful to him for raising the suggestion in Committee, because it fits neatly with an established pattern of working in the GLA. As he rightly observes, the proposal will require any Mayor to achieve a measure of cross-party consensus. The system is established in relation to the Mayor’s budget and the various strategies that he is entitled to bring forward, and it is logical to include such an important issue in the same regime. Not only is there an electoral system in the GLA which requires cross-party consensus for a two-thirds majority, but the assembly is seized of certain powers not unlike our powers in this place to call for people and papers, so it can summon people and, therefore, carry out robust scrutiny.
	Importantly, the assembly is also elected on a basis that includes constituency representatives and those elected through a list system, so any London borough that might be affected or concerned by a proposed mayoral development corporation has its constituency assembly representative at City hall who is able to stand up, ask questions and challenge on their behalf. I hope that that meets the Opposition’s point, and that their amendment will not be necessary.

Barbara Keeley: I doubt it, because having representatives from borough councils on the assembly is not a strong enough measure; they may not comprise the majority. There is still the view in London borough councils, which we will hear more of when we come to our amendments, that they
	should have a veto. The designation of a mayoral development corporation in an area is a very powerful measure. I heard the Minister say that he did not believe the current Mayor had any extra MDCs in mind, but he could do, and the power is cast quite widely.

Bob Neill: I am disappointed in the hon. Lady’s response, because I thought that we had got a good deal of the way down the track to meet what were sensible concerns. There is a difference between recognising that the establishment of a mayoral development corporation is part of the outworking of London-wide policy, in which the Mayor will have to have regard to the strategic economic and developmental interests of the whole city, which may be different from the individual interests of a single local authority, and recognising that the assembly is the body that this House has already charged with holding the Mayor to account for the way in which he exercises those powers.
	There is a difficulty with giving a veto to an individual London borough, because the borough’s interests are very properly not required to be strategic in the same way as those of the Mayor and of the assembly. Often they are, in fairness, and I do not mean to diminish the importance of the London boroughs. As the hon. Lady knows, I spent 16 years as a London borough councillor before spending eight years on the London assembly. That may indicate precocious sadness on my part, but that is a different matter. Both bodies fulfil very important functions, but they are different functions, and, if we are rightly going to put a check and balance on the Mayor’s exercise of his strategic role, we must do so through the assembly—the elected strategic check and balance. The boroughs have an important role in this because the Mayor is required to consult them, among other bodies, and they therefore have a powerful tool in being able to raise their concerns and to lobby their borough elected representative on the assembly to ensure that their case and their voice is heard.

Simon Hughes: Our colleagues on the London assembly are supportive of the Government’s amendments and new clauses, as are my London colleagues and other colleagues in this place. Let me seek clarification on one thing; I hope that I might catch the Speaker’s eye later to speak on the substance of it. If the Mayor were to set up development corporations in London, would there be any changes in the planning processes in those areas that took democratic control away from the elected councillors? That was controversial under the old urban development corporations set up by the Conservative Government when Lord Heseltine was the relevant Secretary of State.

Bob Neill: Yes, the corporations could act in that way. They do not have to, because we have not been as specific as was the case in the past with the old-style development corporations as to exactly what they have to include. The likelihood, it is fair to say, is that they would, because part of the objective of a development corporation generally is to bring the development function and the planning function for a particular area together to speed up development. In practice—I hope that this will reassure my right hon. Friend—the east London MDC that was proposed for the Olympic park area has been involved an iterative process, with a degree of
	discussion between the Mayor and the five London boroughs affected. There has been some negotiation, which is probably a mature thing to have in the current circumstances. The upshot is that we now have a proposal to which the Mayor and the London boroughs are satisfied they can sign up. The boroughs accept that they cede some planning power for a period, but now do so by agreement with the Mayor. I think the same process can be achieved in other cases.

Stewart Jackson: Setting aside the sui generis nature of London governance, does my hon. Friend agree that the level of direct accountability of these Government proposals is greater than that which existed hitherto in, for instance, West Northamptonshire Development Corporation, North Northants Development Company and most of, if not all of, the housing market renewal areas? This is indeed an improvement in terms of direct accountability for regeneration policy.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, for two reasons. First, the power to set up the corporation is devolved, and a directly elected regional figure, in the shape of the Mayor, takes that decision. Secondly, there is the veto, which did not exist in relation to the other, earlier-style development corporations. There is therefore a significantly enhanced degree of accountability.

Simon Hughes: I heard what the Minister said about the discussions that have been going on in east London between the Mayor and the local authorities. If, for example, the current Mayor or any future Mayor had the further idea that there should be mayoral development corporations south of the river, would that, of necessity, require him to have the agreement of the local authority or authorities in question if they had a different view, given that there could be a conflict? Co-operation is fine, but a difference of view that means that the local authority’s views are disregarded is not so fine.

Bob Neill: In theory, a Mayor could seek to disregard a local authority’s views, but in practice we reckon that the new clause makes that unachievable. There are two reasons for that. First, the Mayor will have to consult the local authorities, which will have registered their objection. As with any public law decision, he has to behave in a way that is rational and reasonable within the terms of the Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation case. Secondly, because of the electoral arrangements in London, the local authority would be well placed to ensure that a blocking majority was created in the assembly to prevent the policy from going through. There is a theoretical possibility that the Mayor would be able to create the sort of rogue corporation that one might be concerned about, but in reality it is pretty much inconceivable.

Nick Raynsford: The Minister knows that it is not just a theoretical possibility. The Bill states very clearly that if the Mayor applies to the Secretary of State for a mayoral development corporation and has gone through the processes of consultation, if that proposal then comes before the Secretary of State, he must, under the terms of the Bill, create that mayoral development corporation. When I put these points to the Minister in earlier debates in this Chamber on Second Reading and in Committee, I said
	the real danger was that a Mayor who had considerable support in the assembly, as can happen following an election, would be in a strong position to railroad through his proposal against the opposition of the local borough. That remains the case, and I hope that the Minister will accept that.

Bob Neill: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman has been consistently wrong on this point. If he will forgive my saying so, I know that he is offended when somebody comes up with an idea in London governance which is not his own. With respect to him, as he has considerable experience in this field, his solution to the risk, which I do accept, that a Mayor might seek to set up a rogue or an unacceptable development corporation was, in effect, to give the Secretary of State the veto—in other words, instead of saying, as the Bill does, that the Secretary of State “must” approve the proposal, that he “may” approve a policy, and that the veto would rest with a Minister. That was a highly centralising means of resolving the problem. Instead, the Government have trusted the elected representatives of London and said that the assembly, through qualified majority voting, may exercise the veto. That is much more consistent with the localist thrust of the Bill, and I would have thought it was closer to what the right hon. Gentleman, who after all introduced devolution in London, would himself wish to see.

Nick Raynsford: rose —

Andrea Leadsom: rose —

Bob Neill: I give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the right hon. Gentleman.

Andrea Leadsom: As my hon. Friend knows, West Northamptonshire Development Corporation has been hated by local residents for the simple reason that it was forced on them to try to implement a central Government housing policy that has not been successful and that we hope to eliminate within the next couple of years.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing her experience of that body, which is a matter of great concern to her and to others. We have endeavoured to learn from past experience and past failings in the way in which we construct our arrangement, and we have therefore put a democratic veto into our proposals.

Nick Raynsford: I want to correct the Minister’s assertion that I was wrong in my interpretation of the Bill. I repeat the point that was put to him by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes): if the Mayor decides to proceed with a proposal for a mayoral development corporation, the Secretary of State has to give effect to it if it is not blocked by the assembly. We have had debates about the proper mechanisms for blocking such a proposal. However, as the Minister must concede because it is in the Bill, if those mechanisms do not work, the Secretary of State has no discretion and has to give effect to the Mayor’s requirement to bring into effect such a development corporation irrespective of whether
	the individual borough is opposed to it. Will he now please concede that I was not wrong on that point, because that is what the Bill says?

Bob Neill: I will give the right hon. Gentleman this: he is right on textual analysis but remains wrong on policy, because his solution is a centralist one that would give the Secretary of State a veto. The whole point of what we are doing, in improving the Bill from its original state, is that we do not allow the Secretary of State to veto a decision taken by elected representatives in London; rather, we allow the assembly, which is the established body for keeping the Mayor of London in check, to exercise the veto. In policy terms, that is preferable.
	I am disappointed that the Opposition object to this. As I recall only too well, in 1999 they made great play of having devolved power to London by establishing the Greater London authority. I now accept that that was the right thing to do. We are following the logic of that by enabling Londoners to take the decision as to what is the best shape and size of an important regeneration tool for London. They do that with the Mayor making the proposal and the assembly having the ability, if necessary, to veto it, and the boroughs being able to be consulted and to exercise influence through their elected members of the assembly. I am sorry that the Opposition seem to want to start a bit of a war where none need exist, because there is consensus among all parties in the assembly that it is desirable to go down this route.

Barbara Keeley: I think I am right in reporting the Minister as saying that a principle of the Localism Bill is to trust local representatives. I hope that Ministers will bear that in mind as they take the Bill through its final stages in the House, because I want to question them about why that does not carry through to the imposition of shadow mayors, although I know that that is outside the scope of this debate. If we are to be true to the principle of trusting elected representatives, which the Minister has just stated, we must not impose on them.
	Various people have intervened in this debate. It would help if we moved on to considering the amendments fairly soon, because we will be able to take the arguments in the round if we do that.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is in the hands of the Chair. At this stage, the hon. Gentleman will continue his remarks.

Bob Neill: I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I am anxious to deal with as many of the issues raised by hon. Members as possible, because this debate is time-limited, and for good reason. I hope that I have dealt, in large measure, with why it is appropriate to adopt the Government amendments, and why that is preferable to placing a veto in the hands of the boroughs, which would create a potential conflict of interest, or the earlier Opposition proposition of leaving a veto with central Government, which would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the Bill.
	I will cover one final topic before I finish, if I may. Another proposal in the group, which I anticipate will be put, is amendment 351, tabled by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), the next-door
	neighbour of part of my constituency. The amendment relates to the London housing and regeneration board. It is important that the Bill transfers housing powers and responsibilities from central Government agencies, in the form of the Homes and Communities Agency, to the Mayor. That has been welcomed across the piece politically in London. It is envisaged that the London housing board will be the vehicle within which that work is carried out.
	As I read it, and I will happily be corrected if I am wrong, the amendment would prescribe in statute a requirement that the GLA should have a London housing and regeneration board. I cannot go that far because although it is no doubt a sensible thing to have, certainly at the moment, and is something that works well enough with the involvement of the Mayor’s office and the boroughs, we do not think it is consistent with the spirit of localism for us to prescribe, in one particular area, the manner in which the GLA should carry out its activities. Interestingly, that again seems to be a little bit of potential centralism creeping in through the back door. I would prefer to give the Mayor and the boroughs flexibility in determining how to take those issues forward.
	I hope that I have dealt with all the topics in what has perhaps been a livelier debate than might have been anticipated when we started to talk about tax clauses, which I note have not featured in the controversy at all, perhaps not surprisingly.

Heidi Alexander: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the two amendments in my name, although it feels rather strange to be doing so when we have already had much of the debate. I will speak to amendment 351, which relates to the establishment of a London housing and regeneration board, and seeks to guarantee that at least 50% of the membership of such a board would be made up of representatives from the local authority. I will also speak to amendment 352, which we have already debated at some length, and which relates to the process that has to be gone through to establish a mayoral development corporation. Under the amendment, the agreement of any council that is affected would be required before an MDC could be established. I am conscious that there is much to debate this afternoon, so I will limit my remarks.
	I will move on to why I tabled the amendments. I should say at the outset that the amendments have been promoted and supported by London Councils, which, as hon. Members know, is the cross-party organisation that represents London boroughs. We can debate the localist merits of the Bill as a whole, but the provisions on London are distinctly regionalist. Whereas in other parts of the country there is the abolition of regional spatial strategies, we still have the London plan. The Bill proposes the winding up of the London Development Agency and the London part of the Homes and Communities Agency, with their powers being transferred to the London Mayor. Due to the Government’s understandable desire to ensure that the regeneration legacy of the Olympics takes effect, there are proposals in the Bill to enable the Mayor to set up a mayoral development corporation. However, as drafted, the Bill suggests that there could be an MDC anywhere in London, and not just at the Olympics site. My amendments would act as a brake on the concentrating powers that the Bill puts into the hands of the Mayor of London.
	They would give councils and councillors a voice, and they would give people in London the same say as people elsewhere in the country.
	Amendment 352 would make it a requirement that a local authority in a proposed MDC area must agree to its establishment. If more that one local authority is affected, all must agree. The Bill as drafted gives complete power to the Mayor and the Secretary of State. Under Government amendment 213, the support of two thirds of the assembly will be needed for a proposal to move forward. That is not a sufficient assurance. There could be a situation in London in which local people are completely against the setting up of an MDC, councillors and the local authority in the area are completely against the setting up of an MDC, and the GLA constituency member is completely against the setting up of an MDC, and yet if the Mayor wants it to happen, it will happen. I ask hon. Members, what is localist about that?
	We had some fun in Committee. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) talked about the prospect of a new Mayor of London—perhaps Ken Livingstone in a year’s time—choosing to establish a mayoral development corporation in Bromley. I will not repeat those comments.

Nick Raynsford: Why not?

Heidi Alexander: I will not repeat them because I am under strict instructions to keep the debate moving as quickly as I can.

Stewart Jackson: I am interested in the hon. Lady’s views and I am listening to her with great attention. Does she not feel that her proposals are a recipe for institutionalised impasse? Having served on such benign bodies as the London Ecology Committee, the London Waste Regulation Authority and the London fire and civil defence authority, I know that it is almost impossible to get all the boroughs to agree. Therefore, if one borough has a de facto veto, there would never be any major progress on housing and regeneration across Greater London.

Heidi Alexander: That is quite a negative view of politics in London. I do not think that my proposal would lead to institutionalised impasse. The proposals on the ability to set up an MDC in any area are incredibly important. The things that an MDC could do, such as granting planning permission for different developments, compulsorily purchasing land and agreeing plans for an area, are significant matters for people who live in the neighbourhood. Local councils and councillors would also have views on those matters. I would hope that all parts of London government could come together and agree whether an MDC was an appropriate vehicle in a local area. I therefore question whether retaining the powers with the Mayor and the Secretary of State in the Bill is true localism. That was my reason for tabling amendment 352.
	As the Minister said, amendment 351 to clause 158 proposes the establishment of a new London housing and regeneration board. With the winding up of the London Development Agency and the London part of the Homes and Communities Agency, many powers will be transferred to the Mayor of London. We also see in
	chapter 3 of part 6 that provision is made for the devolution of local authority housing finance. That will mean an enhanced role for local authorities in providing, commissioning and funding affordable housing in London.
	I believe it is vital that local authorities and the London Mayor work together to ensure a joint focus on the delivery of much-needed new affordable homes. My amendment would establish a board within six months of the Bill coming into law, and as I said earlier, at least 50% of members of that board would be local authority representatives. That would be a good way of achieving the joint working that London so desperately needs.
	The Minister said that the amendment was unnecessarily prescriptive and asked why we should legislate to set up such a board in London. I cannot let that pass, because in other parts of the Bill, that idea has not prevented the Government from being incredibly prescriptive, whether about arrangements to establish a neighbourhood forum or the process for nominating land as a community asset. The Bill is hugely prescriptive in many ways, and I suggest that on a matter as important as regeneration and the provision of affordable housing, perhaps we could have a bit more prescription to ensure that we achieve what we all want in London.
	The provision of new homes in London at a rent that people can afford is one of the most pressing challenges in the capital. It is difficult, because we do not see huge amounts of land lying around in London and it cannot easily be bought cheaply. Also, the Government have brought forward a huge programme of swingeing cuts to capital budgets for house building. We have seen the proposals for the affordable rent model, and there are many important questions to ask about how workable it is in London, particularly in funding the building of three and four-bedroom family homes. Perhaps they can be built, but whether anyone living in London can afford to live in them is another thing altogether.
	There are important issues to deal with in the provision of new affordable housing in London, and we have to find a way of getting the Mayor of London, the Greater London authority, the local authorities and local communities to work together to achieve that aim. That is the only way in which progress will be made. It is not about one part of London government blaming another; it is about genuine partnership. I am not making a party political point—yes, politics will come into the discussions that take place between the Mayor and London boroughs, but sometimes the arguments will be between politicians of the same party. I want us to raise the issue above party politics and give it the importance that it deserves.
	I urge Members to listen carefully to the rest of the debate and to ask themselves the following questions. Does part 7 of the Bill represent a new era in localism? Does it devolve decisions to the lowest possible level? Does it give more power to London residents and citizens? I do not think that it does, and if Government Members agree with me, I suggest that they join me in the Lobby when we vote on my amendments later, because I intend to press them.

Gavin Barwell: I will restrict myself to commenting on mayoral development corporations. There is an irony
	in the positions that the parties are taking today. It is rather strange for Conservative Members to be defending city-wide government and for Labour Members to be making the case for the boroughs. Incidentally, I say in passing that I always find it slightly grating when people refer to London as a region. It is a city, and I consider myself as living not in a region but in the world’s greatest city.
	Having started on that note of disagreement, I wish to say that on Second Reading and in Committee the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) correctly diagnosed a problem with the Bill. There was a danger that a future Mayor would designate a mayoral development corporation despite widespread cross-party opposition in all parts of the affected area. There would be nothing that the Secretary of State could do but accept that designation. He was absolutely right about that, and we had a good debate about it in Committee.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the problem with the solution that the right hon. Gentleman proposed at that point was that it would have centralised the decision back with the Government. I made the suggestion, which I am grateful to the Government for adopting, that we should go with the grain of the existing arrangements, for which the right hon. Gentleman was probably responsible, and use the London assembly to hold the Mayor in check.
	The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who made a very good contribution throughout the Committee stage, has proposed an alternative solution. The problem is that, if just one local authority were involved, that local authority would essentially be given a veto. There might be good public policy reasons for the Mayor wanting to pursue a development corporation solution in a particular area. I therefore believe that the Government have adopted the right model in the Bill. I suppose I would say that, having proposed it in Committee, but I hope that Ministers will consider a couple of minor tweaks that could be made. If they are persuaded, perhaps that can happen in another place. I shall come to those tweaks in a moment.
	My hon. Friend the Minister will know that many of the people who serve on the London assembly are themselves councillors in the local authorities concerned. In Croydon and Sutton, our London assembly member, Steve O’Connell, is a Croydon councillor. In the neighbouring GLA constituency of Merton and Wandsworth, Richard Tracey is a local councillor.

Eric Ollerenshaw: indicated  assent .

Gavin Barwell: My hon. Friend, who is a former member of the assembly, knows that many members are in that position.
	The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) referred to urban development corporations. I see that he is in heavy conversation at the moment, but he talked about the lack of democratic accountability in those corporations in the 1980s. It is important to make the point that in this case, the designation of a development corporation would be made not by central Government but by the Mayor of London, who is democratically elected.
	I am conscious of the time and know that other Members wish to speak, so I end with two points that Ministers might wish to consider. Schedule 21 deals with the detailed arrangements for mayoral development corporations. Paragraph 1 is about the membership of them, and perhaps the Government could consider a requirement that the people whom the Mayor appointed to them, or at least some of them, should have a connection with the local area covered. That is not mentioned in the schedule. It sets out the need for people to have experience and to have shown some capacity in the relevant functions of the corporation, and for them to have no financial interest. Those are both good and sensible provisions, but there may well be a case for ensuring that at least some members have a local connection with the area and perhaps a relationship with the local authority.
	Paragraph 6 of schedule 21 is about committees established by mayoral development corporations. Sub-paragraph (3) states:
	“A committee or sub-committee may, with the agreement of the Mayor, include persons who are not members of the MDC, but a majority of the members of a committee or sub-committee must be members of the MDC.”
	I, and I suspect other Members, have received representations from both the Mayor and the assembly stating that they would be happy with a much more relaxed rule that gave MDCs more freedom to appoint a greater proportion of people who were not members of its board. Those people may well be members of the local authority or have connections with the area. Given that we have not yet achieved complete consensus on this matter, the Government could look at some of the details of schedule 21, to see whether we can address some of those concerns.
	In conclusion, it is greatly to Ministers’ credit that they listened to the debate in Committee and came back with a solution, which I think is a good one that improves the Bill. If they went away and looked at a couple of details on schedule 21, it might be possible to address some of the concerns that hon. Members have raised in this debate.

Simon Hughes: I shall make a brief contribution to what is an important debate for London, which I am happy to take part in once again.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) that the two biggest issues that affect my constituents and hers, and that fall directly or indirectly within the remit of local government, are jobs and housing. Most people are most concerned about those two issues most of the time. I am afraid that I come to this debate with long experience in this place. When I was first elected, Lady Thatcher’s Government had just set up urban development corporations throughout the country, of which the London Docklands Development Corporation was one. Indeed, that was the backdrop to my by-election, because my predecessor, Bob Mellish, was appointed as vice-chairman of the LDDC. That was not uncontroversial in Bermondsey, because people in general, and particularly those in the Labour party, did not think that a quango should be given the powers over Southwark, Newham and Tower Hamlets that the LDDC was given, so appointing a Labour MP to the LDDC was not consistent with Labour party policy.
	That handover of powers to the UDCs was very controversial, because it meant that planning decisions were taken by a group of unelected people. It was possible to influence the people who took the decisions, but never possible to hold them directly accountable. I used to go to planning committee meetings following lots of community activity—they were not always in Southwark: sometimes, for major planning schemes in the Surrey docks or along the riverside, meetings were held at the LDDC in the Isle of Dogs or elsewhere—but communities often felt alienated afterwards. The legacy is the feeling of remoteness when decisions are not taken by locally elected representatives.
	I am not saying that the local community comes away feeling deliriously happy after every local council planning committee meeting. I have seen enough local planning committees in Southwark over the years make controversial planning decisions—under Labour, Liberal Democrat and Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition administrations. However, at the end of the day, the public at least know that they can kick those people out at the next election if they want to do so. My premise, therefore, is that the starting point should always be accountable decision making, particularly on planning matters, and particularly on the big planning matters that “urban development” by definition implies. This is not about whether someone can have a bedroom in the mansard roof of a flat or house, or whether someone’s garage can be an extra bedroom; this is about schemes for industrial sites and other things on that scale.

Stewart Jackson: I hasten to say that I do not know as much about the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency as he does, but surely the history of the LDDC is that the political administrations in, for instance, Tower Hamlets and Newham, which happened to be Labour-run at the time, were viscerally hostile to central Government, and refused to undertake any realistic action on regeneration or to face up to post-industrial decline in their boroughs. Central Government was therefore forced to step in to provide a template for regeneration and housing.

Simon Hughes: I shall not help the House to hold a seminar on London in the ’70s and ’80s, which would actually be very interesting. The hon. Gentleman is nevertheless right. Local authorities did not get on with development. There were frozen developments, including one in the Royal Docks and some in my constituency, after the closure of the London docks in the upper pool in places like Bermondsey, and their move down to Tilbury. That is why the Government intervened, and I understand why they did so. It was necessary to get something moving. Whatever else we say about it, the LDDC certainly did that. Its legacy has, in general terms, been very benign. The regeneration has been hugely successful. Southwark is as prosperous as it is, and the business rates that are collected in Southwark are as high as they are, because of the regeneration along the riverside from London bridge down to the end of my constituency at the other side of the Greenland dock, on the border with Deptford.
	To pursue the housing and jobs theme, it is clear that there are huge opportunities for employment-regenerative activities in inner-London boroughs if the conditions—
	meaning rate relief, sites and so on—are right. I visited the Tower Bridge Business Centre in my constituency just the other day, which is on the site of the old Peek Frean’s factory in Bermondsey. That hugely successful, privately owned enterprise provides a nursery and units of various sizes for people as they grow their businesses. It is one of a set of businesses run by the same company around Greater London, where it does all its business. It has very innovative ideas. There is no shortage of individuals, small firms and others that want to come in to take over the spaces that were previously occupied by larger businesses. The large wholesale warehouses and distribution centres, for example, are not in London any more, and we no longer need storage centres because we store on micro-files rather than in paper files.
	The opportunity for London to continue as a place of employment still exists, and not just in the financial industries of the City. London has fantastic creative industries, small engineering enterprises and so on, and we must make the most of these opportunities.
	There is a huge need to ensure that we continue to build homes at prices that our constituents can afford. The other day, I met some representatives of the G15 group of London housing associations, which owns the largest number of properties in London; it is known to all London Members. The G15 is concerned about how the financial picture and envelope will permit them to develop. I undertook to the G15 that I would seek to convene a meeting in June to try to sort out what appears at the moment to be a set of policies that is not yet fully connected. Invited are the Housing and Local Government Minister, who has agreed to attend; Lord Freud, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; colleagues from throughout London from all parties; the Mayor, who has shown an interest; local councillors representing the 33 local authorities;, and the housing world. How do we deliver more affordable homes, particularly the larger homes with three or four bedrooms for families, and deliver on the Government’s general approach to welfare without making it impossible for people to stay in the sorts of homes that we want them to be in? I hope we can join up that remaining part of the policy, and I welcome the advice of the hon. Member for Lewisham East, who has experience of the matter. I will work with her colleagues and Conservative colleagues, and I am sure that we can make further progress. I also welcome the fact that the Mayor is taking a direct interest.
	The proposals in this group are about further transfers of power to the Mayor. As a veteran of both the legislation to the abolish the Greater London council, which I opposed, and the legislation to set up the Greater London authority, which I supported, I believe that more powers should be given to London government from central Government. Indeed, the difficulties that the Government have run into on other policies—for example, on the NHS—could have been less had they accepted our advice. I and my hon. Friends argued and voted for amendments on transferring strategic health powers to London government, for example, because it is better to get rid of unaccountable quangos and regional bodies and to replace them with accountable regional bodies.

Nick Raynsford: I was a little surprised when the right hon. Gentleman said that he supported the restoration of the GLA. My recollection is that he and the Liberal
	Democrats voted against the creation of a Mayor of London. He might have supported the concept of an assembly, but the Liberal Democrats did not support the GLA architecture as it exists.

Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is of course correct. He knows that as well as anybody, because it was his plan that the Government were delivering on. Liberal Democrats wanted devolution to London, but we were not sold on that model, which is why we still—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I just say that we need to get back to dealing with the new clause? We are having a history lesson in the Chamber. As interesting as that is, other people are waiting to speak. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman now wishes to address the new clause.

Simon Hughes: I stand rebuked, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was tempted by the right hon. Gentleman, but I will not be any more. I will make a few more comments, and then sit down.
	The next issue is how exactly the transfer of powers back to London will work. It is certainly right that, as the Bill proposes, we get rid of the London function of the Homes and Communities Agency, which is a quango, and transfer it to a democratically elected Mayor answerable to the 25 elected members of the London assembly. That is a good thing. It is also certainly right that the Government abolish the Government office for London. There is no need for a Government office for London as well as a Mayor, a London assembly and a Greater London authority. All those policies are heading in the right direction.
	We now need to solve the further dilemma of how we strike the right balance between London-wide decisions, which are perfectly proper, and the interests of the boroughs. I understand that there is still some unresolved tension in that regard. My colleagues on the London assembly and across London think that, on balance, the Government are heading in the right direction, so today, although obviously the hon. Member for Lewisham East is entitled to make her case, we cannot support her. However, I do not want her to take that to mean that there are not further conversations to be had. Obviously the Bill will go to the House of Lords, and there will be opportunities to look at these things afresh.
	I am hopeful that today’s debate will flag up the need to ensure—I am happy to have further conversations with colleagues about this—that the new architecture is the right architecture. I heard clearly what the Minister said about the Mayor’s power being subject to the two-thirds support of the London assembly, and I agree that that amounts to a requirement for a cross-party endorsement or cross-party veto. That will be a welcome control mechanism. I do not criticise the fact that the representatives, particularly the constituency representatives, should be able to speak for their constituencies, including for the borough councils within those constituencies, which is one of their jobs.

Heidi Alexander: What does the right hon. Gentleman make of what I see as something of a conundrum in the Bill? If a neighbourhood forum in his constituency came up with a neighbourhood plan, it could be completely overridden by the establishment of a mayoral development corporation, over which his community, councillors and local authority will have had no say.

Simon Hughes: They will have had a say, because, as the hon. Lady will know, the Bill contains a requirement for formal consultation with a list of people, including every local authority and others.
	The Government are trying to take power from the centre and hand it down to the regions, including London, and then further down, not just to local authorities but to neighbourhoods. Southwark has eight community councils, which is very welcome. That is what the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who has responsibility for planning, asks us to support. However, that does not mean that there should not be overarching responsibilities on a London-wide basis.
	I say to the hon. Member for Lewisham East that there is certainly a wish to continue arguing for a London-wide responsibility for housing strategy, and we need to work out the best way of delivering that. Boroughs will do their own thing to develop as much as they can, but we will clearly need a London-wide policy to meet the needs of the homeless, asylum seekers and refugees, for instance, who do not immediately and naturally become the responsibility of a particular borough, because they do not have a fixed link with that borough. I and my London colleagues are keen to work with her and her London colleagues and the Minister and his colleagues to try to ensure that at the end of the deliberations we put in place the best possible structure, providing appropriate responsibilities at the level of boroughs and the Mayor and the London assembly, and as far as possible allowing for democratic accountability for all policies, particularly housing and regeneration.

Gavin Barwell: I tried to address in my speech the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but he was in discussion with a colleague at the time. If paragraph 6 of schedule 11 was amended, it would give the Mayor more flexibility to put people from neighbourhood planning groups or local authority representatives on to the MDC planning committee. That may be one way of squaring this circle.

Simon Hughes: At the moment, of course, the legislation provides for how the Mayor chooses the people to be on the development corporations. That could be looked at again. I do not think that my colleagues would object to there being nominees either from the local authorities in the areas in question—whether from more than one or a single local authority—or from the community councils and elsewhere. I think the hon. Gentleman’s idea, which we need to consider, is a good one.
	There needs to be good democracy in London whereby people can be held to account for the decisions they make. The fact that the London Development Agency is going is helpful, because it means that the Mayor will be responsible for London’s economic regeneration as a whole. That is what mayors of big cities should do. Whether people support mayors in big cities is a separate debate, but if we have them, that is what they should do. The Mayor should be held to account by the assembly, so I hope that we can say to the Minister that he is on the right track, but that he should remain alert to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Lewisham East and her Front-Bench colleagues. If we can get it,
	we need to aim for consensus by the time the Bill completes its passage through the House of Lords and Parliament.

Stewart Jackson: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). It goes without saying that I support the Government amendments. The Bill will disturb the equilibrium that we established in 1998 and the settled view of London governance. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) piloted the legislation on this matter through Parliament. I had the pleasure—generally speaking—of serving with him in the last Parliament on several Bill Committees, but in some respects he is resiling from earlier commitments. His proposals opposing the Government amendments and the views expressed ably and articulately by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) seek effectively to undermine the authority and autonomy of the boroughs. They would set up an institutionalised conflict between the boroughs and the Greater London authority, with the Mayor quite possibly acting as the de facto referee and invigilator. That is a serious concern.
	On the hon. Lady’s amendment 351, we should acknowledge the consensus in the House on the need for more affordable housing, better-quality housing and aesthetically pleasing housing, and above all for regeneration to consolidate London’s position as the pre-eminent city in Europe. However, looking at what was delivered in the dozen or so years of the regional development agencies, when we had a centralised policy, and an over-prescriptive and—one may even say—draconian approach to housing targets, I am not convinced that instituting a pan-London borough body would achieve the key objectives that we all seek.
	I mentioned earlier, albeit perhaps in a slightly irreverent way, that for eight years while I was a London borough councillor, I served on bodies that were largely non-political. To get agreement on waste transfer and ecology centres was difficult enough, so making value judgments as between different boroughs and in effect resiling from a strategic overview of what is good for a whole city or region probably would not work. Incidentally, I have to disabuse my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) of one notion. Peterborough is, in fact, the greatest city in the world, but we might have to beg to differ on that. However, with all due respect to the hon. Member for Lewisham East, while my heart agrees with her, my head says that her proposals probably would not work or deliver what we wish.
	Let me briefly address the Government amendments and the points made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. As the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said, we would be returning to something like the situation that prevailed with the London Docklands Development Corporation, with the Secretary of State required to make the value judgment that neither the boroughs nor the GLA could sort something out, and therefore to impose a regeneration body. We have moved on from that. We now have a more mature and nuanced political culture. Once we establish the bona fides of London governance through the GLA and the Mayor, with the proviso that there will effectively be a two-thirds veto for the directly elected individuals, who will debate
	among themselves and with their boroughs, it would seem invidious to undermine that by putting so much potential power—again, effectively in the form of a veto—in the hands of the Mayor.
	On that basis, I would urge Ministers—and in particular the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—to reject the Opposition’s views and to make the case strongly. What we have is the best consensual way forward to ensure that we get what we all want, which is better quality housing in London and for the economic engine driving the south-east and the wider country to be a success. That is why I support the Government amendments.

Barbara Keeley: I want to speak briefly in support of the amendments so ably presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander). There was much consensus on this part of the Bill, unlike on others. There was much consultation with the Mayor, the Greater London assembly and London councils. To me, this part of the Bill shows the value of early and thorough consultation. Perhaps there is a lesson for us there.
	As my hon. Friend has argued, the powers of a mayoral development corporation would be great. The power of the Mayor to establish new mayoral development corporations anywhere across the Greater London area is cast widely, as we discussed extensively in Committee. Amendment 352 quite rightly seeks to ensure that where a Mayor seeks to establish a further mayoral development corporation, the majority of the borough councils affected by such a designation would have to agree to it. The Opposition do not believe that this would create any form of impasse. However, it is important that a borough council with only a small representation in the assembly—one that could therefore in no way seek to achieve a two-thirds majority through its assembly representation—should be able to come to agreement with either one or all the other boroughs if another development corporation was designated. We agree with my hon. Friend’s amendment 352 and will support it in a Division.

Bob Neill: This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate, although I accept that there has been an element of déjà vu for some of us. I say that as someone who served on the old Greater London council and who found its abolition quite painless, partly because at the same time I was serving on the fire authority, the waste regulation authority, the waste disposal authority and the borough council. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) is quite right that we created a somewhat convoluted architecture thereafter, which is why it is right to restore as much decision making as we can to London. That is why I am grateful for his support for the general thrust of where we are going.
	I understand the point that the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) made about the importance of employment and housing. She is absolutely right about that. I also accept the need to take all the agencies in London along with any such proposal, but I cannot accept her proposition that we cannot trust London’s politicians to come to a mature decision on the best way forward.
	A powerful point about the history of London was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), and it was also reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. They all have long experience in London government. Their point was that there are some details that can be looked at, but it is important to recognise that the relationship between the Mayor and the assembly has matured, even in the short time that the assembly has been in existence. Indeed, the relationship between the Mayor and the boroughs has matured regardless of party, under Mayors of both principal parties, as it happens. We should not underestimate the brokerage and leverage role that exists in the system, in addition to a purely legalistic role.
	If I may be permitted to mention one bit of history, something that we learned from the previous GLC is that it was not simply the disagreements of Ken Livingstone with the Government of the day that undermined the GLC. Rather, the GLC was undermined by the tension between the two tiers and the risk, on occasion, of impasse —impasse that arose regardless of the party controlling the GLC and the London boroughs at the time. That is my concern. Giving boroughs an absolute veto in the way suggested by amendment 352 risks recreating the tensions of the old GLC days, rather than sticking with the more collaborative working that we currently have.
	The proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark also referred, is a sensible one. We can consider the details and discuss them sensibly to find a way to take it forward. We have learned from the rather remote model of operation of the earlier development corporations, and we want to embed that learning in how we go forward in future.
	Even at this late stage, I hope that the Opposition will think about the necessity of pressing their amendment 352 to a vote. However, if they really insist, I would ask the House to reject it.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	New clause 21 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the  Bill .

New Schedule 2
	 — 
	‘Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions
	 — 
	Part 1
	 — 
	Transfer under paragraph 60 of Schedule16

1 (1) For the purposes of any enactment about income tax or corporation tax, the Office and the HCA are to be treated as the same person.
	(2) In particular, the transfer effected by paragraph 60 of Schedule 16 is to be disregarded for those purposes.
	(3) Accordingly, that transfer is not to be regarded for the purposes of Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (gains and losses from intangible fixed assets) as involving any realisation of an asset by the Office or acquisition of an asset by the HCA.
	(4) In this paragraph—
	“enactment” includes an enactment contained in an instrument made under an Act,
	“the HCA” means the Homes and Communities Agency, and
	“the Office” means the Office for Tenants and Social Landlords.

Part 2
	 — 
	Certain transfers under scheme under section161 or162

Interpretation of Part 2 of Schedule
	2 In this Part of this Schedule—
	“CTA 2009” means the Corporation Tax Act 2009,
	“public body” means—
	(a) a person which is a public body for the purposes of section 66 of the Finance Act 2003 (stamp duty land tax: transfers involving public bodies), or(b) a person prescribed for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule by order made by the Treasury,
	“relevant transfer” means—
	(a) a transfer, in accordance with a transfer scheme under section161, to a taxable public body of property, rights or liabilities of the Homes and Communities Agency, or(b) a transfer, in accordance with a transfer scheme under section162, to a taxable public body,
	“taxable public body” means a public body which is within the charge to corporation tax,
	“transferee”, in relation to a transfer in accordance with a transfer scheme under section161 or162, means the person to whom the transfer is made, and
	“transferor”—
	(a) means the Homes and Communities Agency in relation to a transfer, in accordance with a transfer scheme under section161, of property, rights or liabilities of that Agency, and(b) means the London Development Agency in relation to a transfer in accordance with a transfer scheme under section162.
	Computation of profits and losses in respect of transfer of a trade
	3 (1) This paragraph applies where a taxable public body (“the predecessor”) is carrying on a trade or part of a trade and, as a result of a transfer scheme under section 161 or 162—
	(a) the predecessor ceases to carry on that trade or part of a trade, and
	(b) another taxable public body (“the successor”) begins to carry on that trade or part.
	(2) For the purposes of calculating, in relation to the time when the scheme comes into force and subsequent times, the relevant trading profits or losses of the predecessor and the successor—
	(a) the trade or part is to be treated as having been a separate trade at the time of its commencement and as having been carried on by the successor at all times since its commencement as a separate trade, and
	(b) the trade carried on by the successor after the time when the scheme comes into force is to be treated as the same trade as that which the successor is treated, by virtue of paragraph (a), as having carried on as a separate trade before that time.
	(3) If a trade or part of a trade is to be treated under this paragraph as a separate trade, such apportionments of receipts, expenses, assets and liabilities are to be made for the purposes of computing relevant trading profits or losses as may be just and reasonable.
	(4) This paragraph is subject to the other provisions of this Part of this Schedule.
	(5) In this paragraph “relevant trading profits or losses” means profits or losses under Part 3 of CTA 2009 in respect of the trade or part of a trade in question.
	Transfers of trading stock
	4 (1) This paragraph applies if—
	(a) under a relevant transfer, trading stock of the transferor is transferred to the transferee,
	(b) immediately after the transfer takes effect, the stock is to be treated as trading stock of the transferee, and
	(c) paragraph 3 does not apply in relation to the transfer.
	(2) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) have effect in calculating for any corporation tax purpose both—
	(a) the profits of the trade in relation to which the stock is trading stock immediately before the transfer takes effect (“the transferor’s trade”), and
	(b) the profits of the trade in relation to which it is to be treated as trading stock (“the transferee’s trade”).
	(3) The stock is to be treated as having been—
	(a) disposed of by the transferor in the course of the transferor’s trade,
	(b) acquired by the transferee in the course of the transferee’s trade, and
	(c) subject to that, disposed of and acquired when the transfer takes effect.
	(4) The stock is to be valued as if the disposal and acquisition had been for a consideration which in relation to the transferor would have resulted in neither a profit nor a loss being brought into account in respect of the disposal in the accounting period of the transferor which ends with, or is current at, the time when the transfer takes effect.
	(5) In this paragraph “trading stock” has the meaning given by section 163 of CTA 2009.
	Continuity in relation to loan relationships
	5 (1) For the purposes of the application of Part 5 of CTA 2009 (loan relationships) in relation to a relevant transfer of rights and liabilities under a loan relationship to which immediately before the transfer takes effect the transferor is a party for the purposes of a trade it carries on, the transferee and the transferor are to be treated as if at the time of the transfer they were members of the same group.
	(2) For the purposes of the application of Part 5 of CTA 2009 in relation to a transfer that—
	(a) is to a public body,
	(b) is in accordance with a transfer scheme under section 161 or 162, and
	(c) is of rights and liabilities under a loan relationship to which immediately before the transfer takes effect the HCA or LDA is a party otherwise than for the purposes of a trade it carries on,
	the HCA or LDA, and the person to whom the transfer is made, are to be treated as if at the time of the transfer they were members of the same group.
	(3) In this paragraph any reference to being members of the same group is to be read in accordance with section 170 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.
	(4) In this paragraph—
	“the HCA” means the Homes and Communities Agency, and
	“the LDA” means the London Development Agency.
	Chargeable gains: disposal on transfer to be treated as no gain/no loss disposal
	6 (1) For the purposes of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, a disposal constituted by a transfer within sub-paragraph (2) is to be treated in relation to the transferor and transferee as made for a consideration such that no gain or loss accrues to the transferor.
	(2) A transfer is within this sub-paragraph if—
	(a) it is a transfer in accordance with a transfer scheme under section 161 of property, rights or liabilities of the Homes and Communities Agency and the transferee is a public body, or
	(b) it is in accordance with a transfer scheme under section 162 and the transferee is a public body.
	(3) In section 288(3A) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (meaning of the “no gain/no loss provisions”) at the end insert—
	“(m) paragraph 6(1) of Schedule [Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions] to the Localism Act 2011.”
	Stamp duty
	7 Stamp duty is not chargeable on a transfer scheme under section162 if the transferee is a public body.
	Modifications of transfer schemes
	8 (1) This paragraph applies if—
	(a) a company delivers a company tax return,
	(b) subsequently an agreement is made modifying a transfer scheme under section 161 or 162, and
	(c) as a result of that, the return is incorrect.
	(2) The return may be amended under paragraph 15 of Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 1998 so as to remedy the error, ignoring any time limit which would otherwise prevent that happening.
	(3) An amendment may not be made in reliance on sub-paragraph (2) more than 12 months after the end of the accounting period of the company during which the agreement is made.
	(4) Sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) apply if the company does not amend the return so as to remedy the error before the end of that 12 month period.
	(5) A discovery assessment or a discovery determination may be made in relation to the error, ignoring any time limit which would otherwise prevent that happening.
	(6) Such an assessment or determination may not be made in reliance on sub-paragraph (5) more than 24 months after the end of the accounting period mentioned in sub-paragraph (3).
	(7) Expressions used in this paragraph and in Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 1998 have in this paragraph the meaning they have in that Schedule.’.

Part 3
	 — 
	Transfers under scheme under section171(1) or (4) or187(1)

9 (1) In this paragraph “transfer scheme” means a transfer scheme under section 171(1) or (4) or 187(1).
	(2) The Treasury may by regulations make provision for varying the way in which a relevant tax has effect from time to time in relation to—
	(a) any property, rights or liabilities transferred in accordance with a transfer scheme, or
	(b) anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, or in consequence of, the transfer of any property, rights or liabilities in accordance with a transfer scheme.
	(3) The provision that may be made under sub-paragraph (2)(a) includes, in particular, provision for—
	(a) a tax provision not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in relation to any property, rights or liabilities transferred;
	(b) any property, rights or liabilities transferred to be treated in a specified way for the purposes of a tax provision;
	(c) the Secretary of State or Mayor of London to be required or permitted, with the consent of the Treasury, to determine, or to specify the method for determining, anything which needs to be determined for the purposes of any tax provision so far as relating to any property, rights or liabilities transferred.
	(4) The provision that may be made under sub-paragraph (2)(b) includes, in particular, provision for—
	(a) a tax provision not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in relation to anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, or in consequence of, the transfer;
	(b) anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, or in consequence of, the transfer to have or not to have a specified consequence or to be treated in a specified way;
	(c) the Secretary of State or Mayor of London to be required or permitted, with the consent of the Treasury, to determine, or to specify the method for determining, anything which needs to be determined for the purposes of any tax provision so far as relating to anything done for the purposes of, in relation to, or in consequence of, the transfer.
	(5) In this paragraph—
	“relevant tax” means corporation tax, income tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, stamp duty land tax or stamp duty reserve tax, and
	“tax provision” means a provision of an enactment about a relevant tax.
	(6) In sub-paragraph (5) “enactment” includes an enactment contained in an instrument made under an Act.’.—(Robert Neill.)
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 20
	 — 
	Authority may be required to carry on commercial activities through a taxable body

‘(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 34 insert—
	“34A Restriction on exercise of certain powers except through a taxable body
	(1) The Authority may carry on specified activities for a commercial purpose only if it does so—
	(a) through a company that is a subsidiary of the Authority, or
	(b) in pursuance of an authorisation under section 38(1), through—
	(i) a body that is specified in section 38(2) and is within the charge to corporation tax, or
	(ii) a company that is a subsidiary of a body specified in section 38(2).
	(2) Subsection (3) applies if—
	(a) the Authority carries on a specified activity for a commercial purpose otherwise than as permitted by subsection (1), and
	(b) the activity is actually carried on by a body (whether the Authority or another) that, disregarding this section, is in respect of the carrying-on of the activity exempt from corporation tax and income tax.
	(3) The body mentioned in subsection (2)(b) is to be treated in respect of the carrying-on of the activity as not being a local authority for the purposes of—
	(a) section 984 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (exemption of local authorities from corporation tax),
	(b) section 838 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (exemption of local authorities from income tax), and
	(c) section 271 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (exemption of local authorities from capital gains tax).
	(4) In this section—
	“company” means—
	(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, and
	“specified activity” means an activity specified in an order made by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury.”
	(3) In section 420(8) (orders subject to annulment) after the entry for section 25 insert—
	“section 34A;”.’.—(Robert Neill.)
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 161
	 — 
	Transfer of property of Homes and Communities Agency etc

Amendments made: 205,page143,line31, at end insert—
	‘(ba) a company that is a subsidiary of the Greater London Authority,’.
	Amendment 206,page143,line38, at end insert—
	‘“company” means—
	(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969;’.
	Amendment 207,page143,line42, at end insert—
	‘“subsidiary” has the meaning given by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006.’.—(Robert Neill.)

Clause 162
	 — 
	Abolition of London Development Agency and transfer of its property etc

Amendments made: 208, page 144, line 8, at end insert—
	‘(ba) a company that is a subsidiary of the Greater London Authority,’.
	Amendment 209,page144,line17, at end insert—
	‘“company” means—
	(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969;’.
	Amendment 210,page144,line21, at end insert—
	‘“subsidiary” has the meaning given by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006.’.—(Robert Neill.)

Clause 168
	 — 
	Designation of Mayoral development areas

Amendments made: 212, page 148, line 1, leave out from ‘has’ to end of line.
	(e) the Mayor has laid before the London Assembly, in accordance with standing orders of the Greater London Authority, a document stating that the Mayor is proposing to designate the area, and
	(f) the consideration period for the document has expired without the London Assembly having rejected the proposal.’.—(Robert Neill.)
	Amendment proposed: 352,page148,line7, at end insert—
	‘(e) a majority of those London borough councils whose borough contains any part of the designated development area agree to the designation.’.—(Heidi  Alexander .)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Lindsay Hoyle: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 222, Noes 310.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment made: 213,page148,line22, at end insert—
	‘(4A) For the purposes of subsection (3)(f)—
	(a) the “consideration period” for a document is the 21 days beginning with the day the document is laid before the London Assembly in accordance with standing orders of the Greater London Authority, and
	(b) the London Assembly rejects a proposal if it resolves to do so on a motion—
	(i) considered at a meeting of the Assembly throughout which members of the public are entitled to be present, and
	(ii) agreed to by at least two thirds of the Assembly members voting.’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 171
	 — 
	Transfers of property etc to a Mayoral development corporation

Amendments made: 214,page150,line12, at end insert
	‘, or
	(c) a company that is a subsidiary of the Greater London Authority.’.
	Amendment 215,page150,line23, at end insert—
	‘(8A) In subsection (4)(c)—
	“company” means—
	(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or
	(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, and “subsidiary” has the meaning given by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006.’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 173
	 — 
	Functions in relation to Town and Country Planning

Amendment made: 216,page151,line41, leave out from ‘has’ to end of line.

Clause 185
	 — 
	Powers in relation to discretionary relief from non-domestic rates

Amendment made: 217,page157,line28, leave out from ‘has’ to end of line.

Clause 187
	 — 
	Transfers of property, rights and liabilities

Amendments made: 218,page158,line26, at end insert—
	‘“company” means—
	(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or
	(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969;’.
	Amendment 219,page158,line31, at end insert—
	‘(ba) a company that is a subsidiary of the Greater London Authority,’.
	Amendment 220,page158,line34, at end insert—
	‘“subsidiary” has the meaning given by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006.’.—(Greg Clark.)

New Clause 19
	 — 
	Capital receipts from disposal of housing land

In section 11 of the Local Government Act 2003 (use of capital receipts by a local authority) after subsection (5) insert—
	“(6) The Secretary of State and a local authority in England may enter into an agreement with the effect that a requirement imposed under subsection (2)(b) does not apply to, or is modified in its application to, capital receipts of the authority that are specified or described in the agreement.”’.—(Andrew Stunell.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 3—Disestablishment of an arm’s length management organisation—
	‘Schedule [Disestablishment of an arm’s length management organisation] has effect.’.
	New clause 24—Landlord notification of succession of tenancy —
	‘In Schedule 2, Part 3, Ground 16, sub-paragraph (b) of the Housing Act 1985, after “date”, insert “on which the landlord was notified”’.
	New clause 25—Recovery of a tenancy granted on ineligible grounds —
	‘In section 167(8) of the Housing Act 1996, after “scheme”, insert “and any allocation which is not in accordance with the allocation scheme shall be void and shall not give rise to a tenancy”’.
	New clause 26—Housing co-operatives —
	‘(1) Schedule 14 of the Housing Act 2004 is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 6 insert new sub-paragraph—
	“(3) This paragraph does apply to any building which is owned by a fully mutual co-operative housing association as defined by section 1(2) of the Housing Associations Act 1985, the management of which is undertaken by general meeting.”.’.
	Amendment 273,in clause 123, page108,line11, after ‘1985)’, insert
	‘or who have been owed such duties at any time within the previous five years’.
	Amendment 360,in clause 124, page110,line37, Clause 124, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘five’.
	Amendment 270,page110,line39, at end insert—
	‘(7A) In subsection (7AC) at end, insert—
	“(d) In so far as reasonably practicable, the private rented sector offer must be within the local housing authority’s district.”’.
	Amendment 269,in clause 125, page111,line33, at end insert—
	‘(2A) Omit section 190 and replace with—
	“190 Duties to persons becoming homeless intentionally or who are not in priority need.
	(1) This section applies where the local housing authority is satisfied that an applicant is homeless and is eligible for assistance but are also satisfied that he became homeless intentionally.
	(2) The local authority must—
	(a) secure that accommodation is available for his occupation for such period as it considers will give him a reasonable opportunity of securing accommodation for his occupation, and
	(b) provide him with (or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance in any attempts he may make to secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation.
	(3) The applicant’s housing needs shall be assessed before advice and assistance is provided under subsection (2)(b).
	(4) The advice and assistance provided under subsection (2)(b) must include information about the likely availability in the authority’s district of types of accommodation appropriate to the applicant’s housing needs (including, in particular, the location and sources of such types of accommodation).”.
	(2B) Omit section 192.’.
	Amendment 274,page111,line39, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘five’.
	Amendment 275,page112,line12, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘five’.
	Amendment 276,page112,line34, leave out subsection (6).
	Amendment 361,in clause 126, page113,line15, at end insert—
	‘(1A) In preparing its tenancy strategy a local authority must ensure that to the greatest extent possible, tenancies granted in its area provide security of tenure so as to support and develop stable and confident communities.’.
	Amendment 363,page114,line19, leave out clause 128.
	Amendment 13,page114,line36, leave out clause 130.
	Amendment 271,in clause 130, page115,line7, at end insert—
	‘(2A) Subsection (2) shall not apply to a secure tenancy if immediately before the tenancy was granted the person who became the tenant under the tenancy, or in the case of joint tenants, one or more of them was—
	(a) a secure tenant of the same or another dwelling-house, or
	(b) an assured tenant of a private registered provider of social housing or a registered social
	landlord (otherwise than under an assured shorthold tenancy) in respect of the same or
	another dwelling-house.’.
	Amendment 272,page116,line33, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 on page 117 and insert—
	‘sections 83 to 85A of the Housing Act 1985 shall apply equally to Flexible Tenancies and references to secure tenancies in those sections shall be read accordingly.’.
	Amendment 362,page116,line33, after ‘Subject’, insert
	‘to the discretion of the court, in circumstances where the tenant has made representations against the granting of possession, not to make an order if it considers that order disproportionate, and subject’.
	Amendment 14,page118,line19, leave out clause 131.
	Amendment 277,in clause 134, page121,line36 at end insert—
	‘(c) or P is another member of the tenant’s family and has resided with the tenant
	throughout the period of 12 months ending with the tenant’s death.’.
	Government amendments 191 to 203.
	Amendment 364,page128,line35, leave out clause 148.
	Government amendment 204
	Amendment 278,page130,line18 leave out clause 153.
	New clause 23—Litter deposited from motor vehicles —
	‘In Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (litter etc) in section 87 (offence of leaving litter) after subsection (7) insert—
	“(8) Where litter is deposited from a motor vehicle, the person in charge of the vehicle shall, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, be treated as having deposited the litter whether or not he gave any instructions for this to be done.
	(9) The registered keeper of a vehicle shall, for the purposes of subsection (8) above, be deemed to be the person in charge of the vehicle unless within twenty one days of receipt of the summons for an offence prosecuted by virtue of subsection (8) above the registered keeper provides in writing to the prosecutor notification of such identifying details as are available to him of any other person he claims to have been the person in charge of the vehicle at the relevant time.
	(10) For the purposes of subsection (8) above a constable or an authorised officer of a principal litter authority may by notice in writing served on him, require any person to furnish such information specified in the notice as may reasonably be required to ascertain the person in charge of the vehicle at the relevant time, in such form and within such period, being not less than fourteen days following service of the notice, as is so specified.
	(11) It is an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse to fail to comply with any requirement imposed under subsection (10) above.”’.
	New clause 33—Street litter notices —
	‘(1) In Part 4 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (litter etc.) in section 93(2) after “unoccupied” insert “or where there is multiple occupancy”.
	(2) In Part 4 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (litter etc.) in section 94(1)(a) omit “commercial or retail premises” and insert “premium other than dwellings”.
	New clause 38—Protection of businesses and non-domestic users of buildings from complaints —
	‘(1) The Environmental Protection Act 1990 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 80(2) insert—
	2AA (1) Except that a local authority must not issue an abatement notice to a business, place of worship or other non-domestic user of land for a statutory nuisance falling within section 79(1)(g) if the following conditions are met.
	(2) The first condition is that the relevant premises was already in use for the same purpose at the time when the complainant became a local resident, and that such use resulted in a similar noise, and a similar level of noise, at that time.
	(3) The second condition is that use of the relevant premises complies with the planning permission for that land and other legislation in force.”.’.
	New schedule 1—‘Disestablishment of an arm’s length management organisation —
	1 This Schedule applies to the disestablishment of an arm’s length management organisation (ALMO) by a local authority as a result of which responsibility for the management for housing previously managed by the ALMO is transferred to the local authority.
	2 (1) The Secretary of State shall not entertain an application for his or her consent to the disestablishment of an ALMO and a transfer of management to which this Schedule applies unless the authority certify either—
	(a) that the requirements of paragraph 3 as to consultation have been complied with, or
	(b) that the requirements of that paragraph as to consultation have been complied with except in relation to tenants expected to have vacated the dwelling-house in question before the transfer;
	and the certificate shall be accompanied by a copy of the notices given by the authority in accordance with that paragraph.
	(2) Where the certificate is in the latter form, the Secretary of State shall not determine the application until the authority certify as regards the tenants originally consulted—
	(a) that they have vacated the dwelling-house in question, or
	(b) that the requirements of paragraph 3 as to consultation have been complied with;
	and a certificate under sub-sub-paragraph (b) shall be accompanied by a copy of the notices given by the authority in accordance with paragraph 3.
	Requirements as to consultation
	3 (1) The requirements as to consultation referred to above are as follows.
	(2) The authority shall serve notice in writing on each tenant informing him or her of—
	(a) such details of their proposal as the authority consider appropriate, but including the identity of the person to whom the transfer is to be made;
	(b) the likely consequences of the transfer for the tenant, and
	(c) the effect of the provisions of this Schedule and informing the tenant that he or she may, within such reasonable period as may be specified in the notice, make representations to the authority.
	(3) The authority shall consider any representations made to them within that period and shall serve a further written notice on the tenant informing him or her—
	(a) of any significant changes in their proposal, and
	(b) that the tenant may within such period as is specified (which must be at least 28 days after the service of the notice) communicate to the Secretary of State his or her objection to the proposal,
	and informing him or her of the effect of paragraph 4.
	(4) When a notice has been served under sub-paragraph (3) the authority shall arrange a ballot of the tenants in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) to establish whether or not the tenants wish the transfer to proceed.
	(5) The authority shall—
	(a) make arrangements for such person as they consider appropriate to conduct the ballot in such manner as that person considers appropriate; or
	(b) conduct the ballot themselves.
	(6) After the ballot has been held the authority shall serve a notice on each tenant (whether or not he or she voted in the ballot) informing the tenant—
	(a) of the ballot result; and
	(b) if the authority intend to proceed with the transfer, that the tenant may within 28 days after the service of the notice make representations to the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the Welsh Ministers.
	Consent to be withheld if majority of tenants are opposed
	4 (1) The Secretary of State shall not give his or her consent if the result of a ballot arranged under paragraph 3(4) shows that a majority of the tenants of the dwelling-houses to which the application relates who voted in the ballot do not wish the transfer to proceed; but this does not affect his or her general discretion to refuse consent on grounds relating to whether a transfer has the support of the tenants or on any other ground.
	(2) In making this decision the Secretary of State may have regard to any information available to him or her; and the local authority shall give him or her such information as to the representations made to them by tenants and others; and other relevant matters, as he or she may require.’.
	Government amendments 221, 222, 224 to 252, 256, 257, 259 to 262, 267 and 268.

Andrew Stunell: The Bill brings forward a package of reforms to social housing. Taken together, they strengthen localism, giving greater flexibility to local authorities
	and to social landlords in providing the needed housing and the right basic safeguards for tenants. The provisions will allow landlords to make better use of resources, allocating existing homes more sensibly, making sure that support is better focused and providing the right basic safeguards for tenants.
	The Bill’s provisions include: giving back to local authorities the freedom to determine who should qualify to go on the housing waiting list; new flexible tenancies in addition to, rather than replacing, secure and assured tenancies for council and registered social landlord tenants; flexibility to meet the homelessness duty with an offer of accommodation in the private rented sector; and, perhaps most popular of all, replacing the unpopular housing revenue account subsidy with a devolved system of self-financing.
	New clause 19 relates to that, ensuring that the Secretary of State may continue to enter into agreements with local authorities to determine that specified new homes be exempt from the requirement that most of the receipts from any sale under the right to buy should be surrendered to central Government. This will help remove obstacles to local authorities investing their own resources in new homes. To be clear, new clause 19 preserves an existing relaxation in the rule that requires 75% of receipts to be paid to the Treasury in certain circumstances.
	The Government are also taking the opportunity at this stage to make technical improvements with regard to flexible tenure and succession, which I would like briefly to outline. Amendments 202 and 203 exclude shared ownership leases from the landlord repairing obligation, in line with established practice and policy.
	Amendments 191 to 201 are needed to rectify drafting errors in clauses 134 and 135, which deal with succession rights. They clarify the original intention that where there has not already been a succession, someone who is not a spouse or partner can succeed where there is an express term in the tenancy agreement to allow it.
	The Opposition have tabled a number of amendments. Proposals for social housing reform proved to be one of the more contentious areas of the Bill in Committee, with strongly held views often reflecting points of principle. That is reflected in Opposition amendments 13 and 14 as well as in amendments 271 and 272, which would remove flexible tenure in the one case or, frankly, make it unworkable in the other. There have been some misunderstandings over points of detail, so it would be good for me to address them.

Simon Hughes: Before my hon. Friend deals with that, will he put it on the record that nothing in the Bill changes the status of any person who is a tenant in a local authority home or a housing association social home in England in respect of security of tenure? Will he also confirm that nothing in the Bill will require any local authority or any social landlord to change that policy in future—in other words, that the Bill is enabling, not prescriptive, in that respect?

Andrew Stunell: My right hon. Friend is right on both counts.
	Let me begin by saying that, as I ended up summing up a two-hour debate in 16 seconds yesterday, I hope the House will forgive me if I do my summing up at the start of today’s debate.
	There are some concerns that I think any sensible observer of the social housing market understands and shares. The current market does not work as well as it could. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the shadow Secretary of State, made that point herself when her party was in government, and the facts speak for themselves. There are about 5 million people on the social housing waiting list, and a quarter of a million overcrowded households already in social housing. At the same time, there are 400,000 homes in the social housing sector in which more than one bedroom is under-occupied.

Karen Buck: Will the Minister make it clear what the disparity between overcrowded and under-occupied properties actually means? Is it not the case that overcrowded accommodation is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the south-east, while under-occupied property is almost wholly concentrated in the north of England? How does the Minister expect those two types of stock to be matched under his proposals?

Andrew Stunell: I have news for the hon. Lady. As one who represents a constituency outside London, I can tell her that I see both problems. In the last two months, I have been contacted by a family with three teenagers living in a two-bedroom house who have little chance of being allocated a larger house in the near future. Meanwhile, many older people, widowed, are under-occupying large three-bedroom houses. I appreciate that, as is often the case, London presents a special set of problems, but I do not want the hon. Lady to get away with the mythology that this particular problem does not affect every constituency. People visit the surgeries of all Members to discuss it. I hope that the hon. Lady is not seeking to sweep that under the carpet.

Karen Buck: The Minister may wish to respond to a statistical point anecdotally, and of course it is true that there are individual examples of both problems in almost every constituency and part of the country. However, will he confirm for the record that it is statistically the case that the bulk of under-occupation is concentrated in the north of England while most overcrowding is concentrated in London and the south-east? Nothing that we have seen so far in the Bill explains the mechanics of how it will deal with the problems of overcrowding in the south-east and under-occupation in the north without the need for large numbers of people to be moved.

Andrew Stunell: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sure that the Minister wants to answer that question briefly, but I think that any further interventions should relate directly to the new clauses and amendments.

Andrew Stunell: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would have been tempted to talk about our housing investment programme and the impact that our affordable rents policy can have on the securing of new affordable accommodation, particularly in areas with high rental values, of which London and the south-east is an outstanding example, but as you—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think the Minister is pushing his luck. As he knows, he will be summing up the Third Reading debate as well. I think that if he sticks to the new clauses and amendments from now on, everyone will be happy.

Andrew Stunell: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	The housing measures in the Bill will provide greater discretion for social housing landlords and their professional staff. They will relax the rigid rules set by central Government in the past, and together they will allow landlords to exercise greater discretion, adapt the services they offer to local needs, and manage a valuable public resource more effectively in the best interests of local people.
	I recognise that flexible tenure and the proposals to deal with homelessness have caused the most concern to date. Let me repeat what I said in Committee. In the vast majority of cases in which a social landlord offers a flexible tenancy, we will expect that tenancy to be for at least five years. It will often be appropriate to provide longer—in some instances, lifetime—tenancies. If an elderly lady is offered sheltered accommodation or a bungalow, any sensible landlord will doubtless provide a lifetime tenancy. However, if that family in my constituency with three teenagers in a two-bedroom house are finally allocated a three-bedroom house, it surely makes sense to give them a 10-year tenancy, subject to renewal. After 10 years, when the children are in their twenties and have probably left home and the family’s circumstances have changed, they will have had time enough to decide whether that is the accommodation they want.

Alison Seabeck: rose—

Andrew Stunell: I will give way, but then I must make some progress.

Alison Seabeck: Does the Minister not accept that the situation he describes will end up involving an amazingly complex series of different tenures and rents, which will be a nightmare for housing providers to manage, and that it will clearly lead to the system stagnating at times and being hugely unfair?

Andrew Stunell: Of course I do not accept that. A housing provider who decides that this is too complex can choose not to take it up. As has been said, we are offering social landlords an additional way to let tenancies, and they can choose whether or not to take it up. They can base that decision on any sensible factor, including their administrative convenience. We propose that five years should be the minimum term in normal circumstances. We would expect it to be appropriate to offer less than five years only in very exceptional cases, and we have stated in the Bill a two-year lower limit.

Nick Raynsford: The Minister has said he would like the five-year limit to be the normal minimum, with shorter terms only in very exceptional circumstances. Will he therefore tell us why the Bill does not state that, and why he is proposing to vote against the Opposition amendment proposing that five years should be the normal minimum term?

Andrew Stunell: Yes of course I will, although I will take just a few minutes to reach that point in my remarks.
	I want to put clearly on the record again that our proposal does not affect any existing tenant, even if they swap or transfer their home, and even if the person they swap with has a flexible tenancy. Our current system for social housing is not working as well as it can and should. A one-size-fits-all approach to social tenancies does not take account of the different needs of both individual tenants and local communities. A more flexible approach is essential.

Andrew Percy: May I take the Minister back to the scenario he was describing of a family who move into a three-bedroom house until the children leave, perhaps to go to university or because they get jobs? I am a little confused as to what exactly will happen. After the children have left, will a housing officer turn up and tell the parents that they should move out of the property? Based on my experience as a councillor, this is what currently happens in such situations: a housing officer goes to the three-bedroom house to visit the person—often an elderly lady—and has a conversation with them about perhaps moving to a smaller property, but they may well choose not to do so, because that is their home.

Andrew Stunell: Under our proposals, gradually over a period of time there will be a more diverse pattern of tenancies for new tenants. There will not be a wholesale shift to short-term tenancies however, and social landlords have clearly indicated that they will remain focused on maintaining sustainable and cohesive communities and providing appropriate periods of stability to tenants.

Andrew Percy: Will the Minister give way again?

Andrew Stunell: Just give me a moment.

Clive Efford: Give an answer.

Andrew Stunell: I will give an answer, but I thought it might be useful to give a complete answer, rather than a partial one.
	The provisions already in the Bill and our proposals for a new tenure standard will be binding on every social landlord, and they contain important protections for tenants. Under the new system, the regulator will set a tenure standard, the local housing authority will have to develop a housing strategy, and the registered provider will have to publish a tenancy policy. That policy will be drawn up in consultation with tenants, and landlords’ decisions on allocating tenancies will have to be in line with it. A landlord’s decision to end a tenancy will be subject to appeal—that is in the Bill—and if the appeal is unsuccessful and the tenant is not satisfied, possession can only be granted by a court So such a process can never come as a surprise to a tenant. They will have taken that flexible tenancy knowingly, in advance of moving in. If, at the point when the tenancy is being allocated to them, they do not wish to accept the terms and they think them unreasonable, they can ask for a review of that tenancy before they start. They will be taking up any flexible tenancy knowing that it is flexible and knowing what the procedures will be subsequent to their doing so.
	The Government have made it clear that we intend that the tenure standards, which the regulator sets out, will include the guidelines that cover all these matters. It
	is a little perverse that the Opposition’s amendment 363 would take away the Secretary of State’s power to issue instructions to the regulator to cover those tenure and mobility standards.

Brandon Lewis: Will not one of the results of this change be that local authorities such as mine in Great Yarmouth will have much more flexibility to manage the housing stock? That will ensure that they do not have problems with the situation that has been outlined, where people who need a one-bedroom property are in a three-bedroom property and families, including the ones I deal with in my casework all the time, cannot get into properties because they are not available. People are being blocked out and this flexibility will allow local authorities to have better management across their housing stock, which will benefit residents in each area.

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman is right.
	This process is not going to be an instant event and a miracle cure; it will happen only as re-lets take place and only then when a social landlord decides that it wants to implement flexible tenancies for some or perhaps all of its tenancies. At the current national rate of turnover, which is about 5% a year, the evolution of this will be slow. Gradually, it will lead to a better match between the needs of tenants and the housing available for them.

Andy Slaughter: The Minister is doing a very good Pontius Pilate impersonation. He is saying, “I’ll wash my hands of it and we will leave it to others.” But he is leaving it to authorities such as Hammersmith and Fulham council or Notting Hill Housing, the second biggest social landlord, which have both said that they will opt for the minimum possible terms for all tenants, including the elderly and the disabled. What he is allowing as a Liberal Democrat Minister—if that means anything—against what many Liberal Democrats are arguing in constituencies such as mine, is the removal of all the security that people, including the elderly and the disabled, have come to depend on. Will he not take a stand on this issue?

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening, and that is perhaps not unusual. We are setting tenure standards that the regulator will be imposing, if that is the correct word, and to which local housing authorities must have regard in creating their borough-wide housing strategies. In other words, there will not be a completely unregulated market and his fears are grossly overstated.

Andrew Percy: Of course one person’s flexibility is somebody else’s inflexibility—in this case, we are talking about the authorities and, potentially, the tenant respectively. Will the Minister confirm that he is saying what I think he is saying? Let us suppose that somebody has secured a flexible tenancy while their children are living with them and those children then leave home. Is it possible that such a person could find themselves in court and being thrown out of their home because a local authority wants the house back? Is that honestly the situation that we are creating?

Andrew Stunell: No, someone’s fixed-term tenancy is subject to review at the end of the term. There is no automatic eviction; the tenancy is subject to review and the—

Nicholas Dakin: Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Stunell: I will when I finish the sentence, if that is all right.
	The tenure standard will prescribe what local housing authorities can and cannot include in their housing strategy—[Interruption.] At the moment, as the Minister for Housing and Local Government is correctly prompting me, we have ever-growing waiting lists, with people unable to access the accommodation that they desperately need. This is a step towards dealing with that problem. It is not the only step and it will not be a quick step, but it is an important step towards the better allocation of housing.

Karen Buck: Going back to the Minister’s assurances that landlords will not adopt the minimum standards of tenancy and that the approach will be regulated, how does he explain the fact that Notting Hill Housing wrote to everybody in my constituency on the homeless waiting list saying that from 1 April it would immediately adopt short-term tenancies at the lowest number of years permissible?

Andrew Stunell: Fortunately, I do not have to take responsibility for the actions of that body—[Hon. Members: “You do!”] Let us be quite clear that letters can be sent out by anyone to anyone saying anything. However, they are enforceable only if they are consistent with the tenure standards set by the regulator and with the housing strategy derived from them. Registered providers will need to have in place a tenancy policy that is published and drawn up in consultation with tenants. It sounds to me very much as though the letter to which the hon. Lady refers has been sent in advance of any of those things being in place. It is therefore of no value or significance other than that it does something that concerns me a great deal about our debate on this issue: that is, it serves to whip up misunderstanding and fear among existing tenants that in some way they might be affected by these new proposals. That is absolutely not the case.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the Minister for giving way, as he is being very generous. I think the answer to the question from my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), is that clearly somebody who has had a 10-year tenancy and brought up their family can find that when their circumstances change they lose their home. These are homes that people invest in; they are not simply utilitarian houses.

Andrew Stunell: No, that is not correct. Let us be clear that the tenure standards will provide specific protection for the vulnerable. We have already said that in our response to the consultation, and the consultation responses themselves show that the vast majority of landlords will provide longer terms.

Clive Betts: Does the Minister have any practical examples? He has talked about long waiting lists for family houses, but there are
	actually long waiting lists for pensioners’ accommodation, too. If a couple in their 60s, whose children have left home, were on a flexible tenancy, the local authority could ask them to move. If no pensioner accommodation was available, as bungalows are in very short supply in many areas, that couple could be forced to move into a block of flats where the majority of people were young single people or young couples with a completely different lifestyle. Is that the sort of situation that he envisages? If not, will he say precisely where in the guidelines it states that the regulator will stop a local authority or housing association doing that?

Andrew Stunell: The tenure standards will set that out, the housing strategy of the local housing authority will reinforce it and the tenancy policy of the provider, if it is not the housing authority itself, will also set it out.
	I want to make some progress and move on to a second issue that is, I know, of real concern to Members: the provisions on homelessness. Much of the debate on our homelessness proposals started off from the proposition that landlords of private rented property are a rogue sector and incapable of offering decent quality accommodation to those families who might benefit from it. I made it clear in Committee, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government on a number of occasions, that the draft legislation includes a number of safeguards that together provide reassurances that an offer of private accommodation would be made only when it is reasonable to do so and when the accommodation is suitable for the needs of the household.
	It is important to go back to why we are making the changes in the first place. It is not because we want to make the plight of homeless families worse, but because we want to make their situation better. In London, the average stay in temporary accommodation of resettled homeless families before they get a permanent offer of social accommodation is two years. The impact of that time on schooling, quality of life, health and stress is not acceptable and needs to be tackled. I agree with the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) that this probably is not a countrywide problem, and I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) does not have the problem, because he has 2,500 empty houses to begin with, but in places of high housing stress it is a real problem. That is why we are making these proposals.
	In Committee and elsewhere, hon. Members have raised a number of concerns about the homelessness measures. Some of those focused on standards of accommodation in the private rented sector, the interplay that there might be with housing benefit changes and related issues of affordability. There were also concerns about the location of those private rented sector homes, and whether there might be some loophole in creating intentional homelessness. I want to respond to each of those points in due course.

Andy Slaughter: Before the Minister moves on, will he deal with two points regarding what he has said so far? First, how is it an improvement to go from an average two-year wait for permanent accommodation to never getting permanent accommodation and staying perpetually in the private rented sector? Secondly, I assume, but will
	he confirm this on the record, that in his definition of “suitable” he also means “local”? The biggest issue for my constituents is being placed far away from their friends, family, schools and jobs, outside London, based on the excuse of the cost of property. If that is for two years, it might be sustainable, but if it is for ever it will not be. Will he deal with those two points?

Andrew Stunell: Yes, I certainly will. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind if I do so in sequence, but I will respond.
	We need to keep a realistic view of the private rented sector and the impact of welfare reform. I recognise that there are some concerns and I am prepared to consider further the need for additional protections for homeless households placed in the private rented sector. The Secretary of State already has powers to set out in secondary legislation the circumstances in which accommodation is or is not to be regarded as suitable and to specify other matters that are to be taken into account or disregarded when determining suitability. I am prepared to consider using those powers for the provision of additional protections on standards of accommodation or other matters.
	Diligent readers of the Bill will know that there are already important safeguards. Any offer has to have regard to the health and welfare of the tenant, social impacts and affordability for the tenant. Existing legislation is already clear that any loss of income outside the control of the tenant cannot create intentional homelessness. That would be unintentional homelessness and so the duty to deal with that situation would remain with the local authority. The accommodation has to be suitable, or fit for purpose. On the point that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) made, existing housing legislation says that as far as the local housing authority is concerned location must be in the local district so far as is reasonably practicable.

Karen Buck: I am grateful to the Minister, who is being extremely generous in giving way. In central London, which is obviously important to me as a central London MP, the changes in housing benefit mean that only 7% of the entire central London broad market rental area for housing benefit or local housing allowance purposes will be accessible to individuals on that benefit. How then can any central London authority obtain accommodation, as a reasonable discharge of duty, in the private rented sector when there is no accommodation to be obtained?

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Lady speaks of 7%. That was her figure; I do not know whether it is exactly right, but a proportion of the rental market will be affordable. Those who are in temporary accommodation in her borough or whose homelessness arises in her borough are being shunted around. We want to end that regime and have people permanently established in their borough in accordance with the legislation. We believe that our measure will achieve that.

Stephen Gilbert: My hon. Friend seems to suggest that there are protections in the Bill already for people discharged into the private rented sector, but there is a role that secondary legislation can play. When I pressed the point in Committee, in the context of the viability of a national accreditation scheme for landlords to ensure standards—not just in
	relation to suitability and size, but taking account of the types of lease offered and whether repairs are done in a timely way—the Government did not seem keen to pursue it. If that already exists de facto, can it not be brought together in a legal sense?

Andrew Stunell: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which he made in Committee. As he knows, there are a number of local accreditation schemes and in some boroughs it is a requirement that the landlords of tenants who receive housing benefit in their area are members of an accreditation scheme of one sort or another. I will take stock of his point. The Government are not minded to introduce a national scheme, but there may be aspects that he is rightly drawing to our attention for further consideration.

Simon Hughes: I was reassured by my hon. Friend’s words about the Government’s intention that people should not have to move outside the district or community. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has given a similar reassurance. There is particular concern in Greater London because of the acute pressure on property, property prices and so on. I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that his right hon. Friend has agreed, together with, I hope, the responsible Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions, Lord Freud, to meet to see whether, across parties and with the Mayor of London, the housing associations and local authorities, the remaining concerns can be alleviated. I hope my hon. Friend and his colleagues will give full assistance to that measure as the Bill proceeds from this place to the other end of the building.

Andrew Stunell: Yes. Perhaps my words were a little too opaque a little while ago when I said that we are prepared to consider the need for additional protections for homeless households. Clearly, what my right hon. Friend has just set out forms part of that process.

Ian Mearns: Two unitary county councils have been established in the north-east of England in the recent past which are now the housing authorities. The right of a tenant to stay within the housing authority area becomes meaningless in the context of a county that provides housing, because the county can be 40 or 50 miles from border to border. If no housing is available in the immediate neighbourhood, the right to stay within the county means that a tenant may have to move many miles away.

Andrew Stunell: I take stock of what the hon. Gentleman says. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) might want to make a similar point. Perhaps that is one for us to consider more fully.
	The existing legislation requires local housing authorities to locate people within their district so far as reasonably practicable. The homelessness code of guidance sets out all the factors that it is right and appropriate for housing authorities to take into account. Those of us who see real life at constituency level know full well that when those families eventually get their social housing offer, it is seldom in the plum house on the smart estate. It is more likely to be the bottom flat in the hard-to-let block
	on the least desirable estate in town. I hope we do not have a starry-eyed vision of social housing, when compared with the private rented sector, that blinds us to the essential reality we are trying to tackle, which is that the average stay in temporary accommodation for homeless families in London is two years. That is unacceptable and this reform puts us on the way to ending it.

Sheila Gilmore: Does the Minister not agree, however, that for many people the attraction of the housing association or council sector is security of tenure and the fact that they can settle, rather than living in the private rented sector, where they will always have a sword hanging over their head because the landlord may decide to end the tenancy at any moment? It is not just about the relative qualities of the properties, but about people’s sense of security.

Andrew Stunell: I understand the hon. Lady’s concern, but I think that it undervalues the history of tenants in the private rented sector. There is certainly a lot of churn, but there are also many people who spend long periods in very successful private rented sector accommodation. We must be careful not to generalise and should recognise that, if there is a need as a result of a tenancy breaking down, the duty on the authority to deal with that situation remains in the Bill and is part of the protection that tenants have.

Dan Rogerson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could perhaps do a little more to look at other ways of encouraging the private sector to offer longer tenancies—for example, through more work on real estate investment trusts—so that people can invest in property in a way that is more long term, rather than having buy-to-let properties with one or two landlords, which I think is the sort of thing that concerns Opposition Members? That might offer some assistance and I would like the Government to do more on that.

Andrew Stunell: Yes, I entirely agree that there is scope for innovative solutions. It is by no means the Government’s position that in a majority of cases it will be appropriate for social landlords to follow this route, but where it is clear that there is an obvious disadvantage to tenants who are stuck in the temporary accommodation loop, it is surely right to take steps to deal with that more effectively, and I hope that the House will agree.
	The homelessness code of guidance provides that the location of accommodation will be relevant to the suitability of the tenancy and that the appropriateness of the location relates to all members of the household, who must all be considered. Employment, schooling, and family and social connections are all relevant matters that will be taken into account.
	New clause 3 and new schedule 1 relate to changes in the governance of arm’s length management organisations, and I hope that I can be helpful to hon. Members as far as that is concerned. New clause 3 would oblige all councils with ALMOs to undertake a statutory ballot of their tenants and seek the consent of the Secretary of State before an ALMO can be closed down. I have listened to the comments that have been made and read the amendment and the briefing from the organisation. I am sympathetic to a number of the arguments put
	forward, particularly the need to protect tenants and have a consistent consultative model for ALMOs in cases where local authorities are minded to change their status and take them back in house.
	For those councils that hold a ballot before establishing an ALMO, it seems reasonable that they should hold a ballot when they are minded to wind up such an organisation. I understand that of the 61 ALMOs that are currently extant, around 30 were formed following such ballots. The principle of “ballot in, ballot out” does not seem a bad one to hold on to. For those councils that did not hold a ballot, our departmental guidance already stipulates that they should consult widely with tenants before an ALMO is wound up. It does not stipulate what specific format the consultation should take. I have asked my officials to look again at that guidance and the options for strengthening it so that all tenants can be assured of their rights.

Stephen Gilbert: I welcome the commitment to “ballot in, ballot out” in the disestablishment of ALMOs, but the principle should be to give the 50% or so of ALMOs that are left—the 30 to which my hon. Friend referred—as much power as possible to set their own destiny, rather than being buffeted about by the will of the local authority. May I strongly impress upon my hon. Friend the fact that a ballot for all ALMOs seeking disestablishment would be very welcome?

Andrew Stunell: I understand that that would be very welcome, but at the moment I am not convinced of the need for councils to follow that rule. I remind my hon. Friend that ALMOs are completely the creatures of local government, but the tenant participation in ALMOs is a positive feature. The ALMO covering my constituency works well and is well regarded, but even so it is a matter for the local authority. It is not appropriate for a Minister or the Secretary of State to get in the driving seat, but it is right for us to give careful consideration to the guidance, particularly on the ballot point.

Clive Betts: I follow the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) in his request for a ballot in all cases, because that would give us the security of a proper consultation. Changing so fundamentally the management of a tenant’s home is almost as important as changing its ownership, and we should give weight to that. If the Minister is not prepared to go that far, but is simply going to look at “ballot in, ballot out”, which at least would be a step forward, and again at the guidance on consultation, will he have a real look at how the guidance might be underpinned statutorily so that, before an ALMO is allowed to be changed and moved back into a local authority, the Secretary of State can insist that real consultation takes place and tenants’ views are listened to? That does not happen at the moment.

Andrew Stunell: Yes. It is important that we review the guidance—I just said that we should do so—and it would be an unusual local authority that disregarded it. I undertake to reflect further on the best way forward, and I hope that my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman feel that that is a step forward which allows them not to press their amendments today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) has tabled new clause 26, which relates to a specific situation for fully mutual housing co-operatives.
	By a quirk of the legislation, they are caught by the houses in multiple occupation requirement for licensing and, sometimes, planning permission. The Department has been lobbied by the Friendly Housing Action campaign group to secure an exemption for fully mutual housing co-operatives, and I am very sympathetic to the campaign, as such organisations were never intended to be caught by the licensing provisions.
	We have to be careful to ensure that in granting an exemption we do not inadvertently allow other categories to slip through the loophole, so I am asking for further advice on how we might achieve that. I hope to return to the issue at a later stage, so I hope that my hon. Friends will not feel the need to press new clause 26 to a Division.
	I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) for new clauses 25 and 24, which she and her hon. Friends have tabled. They both relate to cases in which courts made decisions that the common-sense man would not have expected. New clause 25 refers to a situation in which the housing allocation scheme was perverted—I think that is the right word—by an officer, and consequently the courts decided that, because of the nature of the current legislation, it was not possible to recover the properties that had been misallocated. I am certainly minded to take some steps in the right direction. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government recently launched a 10-point plan for tackling council fraud, and that included vetting staff. I hope that that means that it is very unlikely that the situation will recur, but we are going to look at how we might move forward. On a rather significant technical point, the place where Opposition Members have chosen to insert the words means that the provision would apply only to Wales; I suspect that that is not what they really meant to do.
	New clause 24 deals with a situation where a death was concealed at the transfer of a tenancy and therefore a vital time line was missed and it then proved impossible to correct that. The new clause changes the time limit restrictions so that when a local authority seeks to repossess a property, the date at which it became aware of the change in circumstances, rather than the actual date of the circumstances, will be relevant. I fully accept the point drawn to our attention. We will explore the issue in more detail and talk to various local authorities and representative bodies with a view to tabling a Government amendment in the other place. I hope that the hon. Lady feels that that is a helpful way for us to proceed.
	I cannot be so consensual on other amendments tabled by the Opposition. I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I must say that we have a considerable mixture of amendments of one type or another, to which I will perhaps respond in my final 16 seconds, if that is how it turns out. Some of them are direct negatives of our proposals in the Bill, some are wrecking amendments to one degree or another, and some are quite seductive in their tone, if not their impact. Several of them duplicate safeguards that are already in the Bill or even in legislation as it has stood for some time.
	Some of the amendments seem to be based on an Opposition view that social landlords are even worse than they think private landlords are, with their principal business being to get people out of their homes as quickly as possible. Of course, that is not the primary
	purpose or intention of social landlords, which is to provide suitable accommodation for those who need it, as will continue to be the situation in future. Other amendments seem to be more about whipping up misunderstanding among vulnerable families than about making a contribution towards solving the heartrending problems of homelessness.
	I urge hon. Friends and other Members to support the Government’s sensible and thoughtful proposals and to reject the many temptations offered by the Opposition.

Alison Seabeck: I repeat the declaration I made at the start of the Public Bill Committee, which is on the record.
	I thank all those involved in Committee proceedings on this large and extensive Bill, including the two very patient Chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess). Although we had well-informed discussions in Committee—Members on both sides of the House are to be commended—I am left with the feeling that we could have done with significantly more time to debate the issues.
	Yesterday, the Minister started by saying that the Committee was consensual—not so on the housing proposals, I am afraid. We debated more than 40 amendments and new clauses on this part of the Bill, and not one was accepted by Government Front Benchers. Although I welcome the moves that the Minister has made today on a couple of our proposals, I do not get a sense that he is giving any ground. Indeed, having listened to his speech and responses, I think he is rather digging in; of course, that is his prerogative.
	The Opposition cannot let these proposals go unchallenged. I will therefore speak to amendments 269, 270, 273 to 276 and 360, new clauses 24 and 25, and amendments 13, 14, 271, 272, 277 and 278, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I flag it up at this stage, given that the Minister has not astounded us with a number of U-turns, that we will press for votes on amendment 13 on flexible tenancies and on amendment 271 on security of tenure.
	New clause 19, which will allow local authorities to keep capital receipts relating to right-to-buy sales, is welcomed by the Opposition, although we would like to see more detail. We understand that it involves the removal of the ring fence around the proceeds from sales of land or property in that account. That raises the concern that that money could be moved away from meeting housing need.
	The Government’s proposals on housing and homelessness are deeply damaging, and none more so than the proposal to end security of tenure in social housing. That will create two classes of tenant in social housing. There will be great uncertainty, because there will be different lengths of tenure and different levels of rent, with little rational relationship between the two. There will be a divide between those who have been fortunate enough to get security of tenure in their social housing, and those who have been made to wait for too
	long and will be granted a tenancy for as little as two years. Tenants whose financial circumstances improve above an arbitrary level will potentially be told to pack up and move on.
	As a result of the complexity of the system that is being brought forward, which will be a bureaucratic nightmare, a household in a three-bedroom house could pay less rent and have greater security than a household next door in a two-bedroom flat. Frankly, that will be divisive. We all have people who come to our constituency surgeries and say, “We don’t understand why so-and-so has higher priority than me.” These proposals will add a further layer to that and will be problematic.
	We heard in the run-up to the announcement on the military covenant—I digress a little, but this is housing-related—about how difficult it is for military families to have to move every couple of years. That often happens and I see it a lot at the naval base. Only this week in questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), said that he had spoken with the Minister for Housing and Local Government on this issue. The Under-Secretary has said in the past that this instability is unacceptable and that soldiers, sailors and airmen need and deserve help to protect the stability of their families’ homes and education.
	However, the message from the Department for Communities and Local Government to all families in social housing is, “Get a better job and you will lose your home. Invite your partner to move in with you and start a family, and you will put your home at risk.” At a time when we want people to do their best to get on in life, and to build something better for themselves and their families, this is the wrong policy. Labour will stand up for people who strive and who put the hours in to better their lot. What will happen to people who fall foul of the new Tory rules and are told to leave their council or housing association home simply because they have worked hard, if they subsequently lose their job or fall ill and are unable to work? What will their entitlement be then? They will go to the back of the queue and start all over again. Where is the incentive to work and where is the fairness?
	In Committee, we received a powerful submission from a young woman called Jessica Sim, who lives in social housing. Her experience will be mirrored by many other tenants. She said:
	“To get an affordable secure home was a great incentive to pursue my career. I also spent a great deal of time and money improving my council home and garden…and getting involved in my community association to improve the area, knowing that we could stay.”
	She went on:
	“What if the people who are kicked out lose their job or get fed up being hardly better off working? Back on housing benefit, back in the queue, the bill will be enormous. Families have a better chance if they have a secure place to live. Moving people on does not solve a shortage of housing.”
	She rightly identified that to solve the housing crisis, the Government need to build more homes. Their policy seems to be aimed at trying to solve the shortage of social housing by allowing everyone a year or two in a social home before moving them on. Ministers seem to have failed to realise that to house people we need not to give them shorter tenancies but to build homes.
	What will be the consequences of that policy of limiting social housing so that it is not available to those who work hard to build something for themselves, or to those who invest in their homes and communities? What will happen when we reduce estates to being areas that people pass through at their most vulnerable point, and transitional communities of the most deprived? We will go back almost to the state of social housing in the first half of the last century, when access to it was limited by law to the “working classes”. That term was only ever defined once in legislation, in paragraph (12)(e) of the schedule to the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1903, as those
	“whose income in any case does not exceed an average of thirty shillings a week”.
	In today’s money, that would be an annual income of just over £7,000. Mean as the Government are, I do not expect them to set a threshold as low as that, which would make them comparable with Tory Governments of the late 19th and early 20th century. However, the message that their change will send is the same now as it was then: that social housing is for the poor. It is to segregate people from other sections of society that are seen as doing better.
	It is more than 62 years since the House decided, without a Division, to accept that segregating social housing off for just one deprived section of society was entirely wrong. In that debate, Aneurin Bevan said—it is as true now as it was then—that it was
	“entirely undesirable that on modern housing estates only one type of citizen should live…that from one sort of township should come one income group and from another sort of township another income group…if we are to enable citizens to lead a full life, if they are each to be aware of the problems of their neighbours, then they should be all drawn from the different sections of the community”.
	The principle of mixed communities in social housing, in which the Labour party should take great pride, was welcomed at that time by the Tory Front-Bench spokesman, the Member for Hertford. He said:
	“It is, of course very desirable that the black-coated workers”—
	administrative workers—
	“should not be shut out from the benefit of local authority housing accommodation.”—[Official Report, 16 March 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2126-38.]
	I am only sorry that the wisdom of Churchillian conservatism, such as it was, has not carried through to coalition Cameronism.
	Sixty years on, the idea that this country is stronger when its communities are more diverse, and that its society is more cohesive when it comprises a broad and mixed swathe of people, is no longer supported by the Conservative party. Nor is it supported by the Liberal party, whose MPs did not oppose the measures in this Bill in Committee despite trying to raise their concerns by tabling amendments. They consistently withdrew those amendments without a vote. Just where is their fabled voice in government and their backbone? We still believe in mixed communities in social housing, underpinned by security of tenure, which the Bill targets so directly.

Karen Buck: Earlier, the Minister assured us that there would be regulations to protect secure tenants—he mentioned a period of five years and, I believe, used the word “scaremongering”. May I share with my hon.
	Friend the letter from Notting Hill Housing that I mentioned, which I have now obtained? It states:
	“The Government have recently set out their plans for the future of social housing. Up until now, this has been known as permanent housing. New homes will be let with fixed-term tenancies for a minimum of two years”.
	It finishes:
	“Since permanent housing will no longer be available, these changes will affect everyone seeking housing from April 2011.”
	Does that not indicate that the Minister was completely wrong in the assurances that he gave?

Alison Seabeck: That is clear evidence of the case that we are trying to make. There is always a risk, when minimum standards are set, that eventually everybody will end up at that level. Clearly some people want to move more quickly than others in that direction.
	Let us not forget that there is a stronger localist voice if a range of interests are represented in an area. Amendment 271 is intended to address the threat in the Bill to take security of tenure away from existing social tenants. That is something of a sore point for the Government, because the Bill represents just another broken promise. Before the general election, the now Prime Minister’s spokesman was briefing the media that the Tory party had no plans to alter security of tenure. The Liberal Democrat manifesto said nothing on the subject, and the Housing and Local Government Minister spent only about 10 minutes in the Chamber on Report.

Clive Efford: Some of us who fought very hard on the issue of secure tenancies and the future of rents at the last election were accused of scaremongering and lying. The Conservatives’ election manifesto explicitly states that they will
	“respect the tenures and rents of social housing tenants.”
	Ministers have made promises today on respecting the future of tenancies and rents, but how can we believe them when the Conservatives said that in their general election manifesto and wrote it off so soon afterwards in the coalition agreement?

Alison Seabeck: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. During the general election, we fought and battled hard throughout the country to get those assurances from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, but they are now reneging on them. It is as simple as that.

Simon Hughes: I am very clear that secure tenancies are a good thing, that council housing is a good thing, and that housing association properties are often good things—they are not always as good as council properties. Will the hon. Lady confirm that the proposal does not affect secure tenants? Does she now accept that? Will she also confirm that the proposal affects people only in future, and that it gives discretion to local authorities? If there were any Government imposition on local authorities, I would not support the proposal for one second, but the proposal gives discretion.

Alison Seabeck: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall address some of those points later in my speech. I find the Liberal Democrat position quite extraordinary.
	The Liberal Democrat manifesto said nothing on the issue, and as I pointed out, the Housing and Local Government Minister, who is, sadly, no longer in the Chamber—he obviously has more interesting things to do than listen to a debate on housing—said that
	“there is no chance of, or way in which, a social tenancy can be broken or changed for anybody already in council or housing association homes.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 19.]
	In November, I asked the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) whether he would give me his personal guarantee that secure tenancy rights would not be changed. He gave a brief, direct answer: “Yes.” If only the Bill that those Ministers now promote were consistent with their previous statements in the House.
	The framework published by the Department is quite clear that tenancies will be secure only for tenants who have a secure tenancy before 31 March 2012. Therefore, tenants with a secure tenancy will lose their security if their family grows and they need to move to a larger home, or if a person wishes to downsize to a smaller home and the only properties available for re-let are offered on a flexible tenancy.
	The Homes and Communities Agency is clear that the expectation is for both flexible tenancies and affordable rents in re-lets and new developments. In future, those families will have an absolutely impossible choice. Do they stay in a home that is no longer suitable for their needs, leaving them overcrowded but with the security they crave and a rent they can afford, or do they accept the move to a larger home, lose their security, and risk losing their home altogether if they are deemed no longer to meet the eligibility criteria for social housing, which could happen two years down the line?

Simon Hughes: indicated  dissent .

Alison Seabeck: The right hon. Gentleman sits there and shakes his head, but there are enough questions about this measure. The Minister had four goes at answering those points in Committee, but his answers were not entirely satisfactory. I urge the right hon. Gentleman either to abstain on Government new clause 19, or to come into the Lobby with the Opposition.

Simon Hughes: I appreciate that this is very serious and I am listening very carefully to the hon. Lady—I do not doubt her commitment. I am open to correction, but my understanding is that in the circumstances she describes, when somebody needs to move from a council home because their family has grown, it does not necessarily follow that they will be unable to be offered a secure tenancy where they go to. If Southwark council kept secure tenancies for all its council stock, people would move to a secure tenancy if they moved to another council property. Will the hon. Lady please at least accept that that option will be just as possible next year as it is this year?

Alison Seabeck: The right hon. Gentleman makes a point about Southwark council, but evidence suggests that significant numbers of councils—largely Conservative
	councils, but no Labour councils—are already saying they want to introduce this proposal quickly. The system allows for discretion, but the evidence suggests that it will not be used, and that Hammersmith and Fulham, Westminster and other councils will simply say, “Sorry, no!” If someone chooses to move—the key point is the choice—they will probably find themselves with a higher rent and a shorter tenure. These proposals contain no guarantees and are inadequate, which is why we tabled our amendments. We need to consider the tenants. The council in Southwark could become a Conservative council in the future—

Simon Hughes: It’s unlikely.

Alison Seabeck: Perhaps, but the point is that there is clearly an appetite among Conservative councils for making use of this provision, offering the minimum they need to and removing security of tenure from people who choose to move.
	It is not a choice I would wish on any family, and it will create disincentives to move within the sector by throwing sand in the wheels. We need to make it easier for people to move within the sector, yet the Government’s proposals will make it harder. If the Government press ahead and create this dog’s breakfast of a flexible tenancy, we want them to stick to their promise not to break secure tenancy rights of existing tenants, even if they choose to move. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends raised this issue with the Minister in Committee during the stand part debate on clause 132. He revealed that the previous guarantees given by his ministerial colleagues were worthless, when he said that the decision on whether tenants would keep their security of tenure would rest with the discretion of the landlord, but that
	“if a tenant chooses to move to an affordable rent property, it is reasonable that discretion should be available to the landlord as to whether that remains in place”.––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 8 March 2011; c. 856.]
	For us, that is simply not good enough. It does not retain security of tenure, and gives landlords a degree of flexibility that we think is negative for tenants. That is why we oppose it. I am disappointed that amid the 234 Government amendments and new clauses there is no amendment to match their rhetoric. That is why we tabled amendment 271. The Government might not be willing or able to stand up for the rights of existing tenants, but the Labour party certainly is.
	Amendment 277 is similar to an amendment debated briefly in Committee at the end of a morning sitting. At the time, the Minister said that clause 134 was part of a cleaning-up exercise, to which I said we would leave things there and consider whether we needed to come back to the issue on Report. As the House of Commons Library rightly points out, the clause removes the statutory right of those other than spouses and partners to succeed to a secure tenancy. Currently, in the absence of a spouse or partner, the close relatives of a secure tenant who have resided in a dwelling as their only or principal home for 12 months prior to the tenant’s death also have a right to succeed to the tenancy.
	Our amendment would extend statutory succession rights beyond spouses and civil partners, to those who have acted as live-in carers for at least one year and siblings who have co-habited for at least one year. Carers contribute an enormous amount to society and to those—almost always close family members—for
	whom they care. We will all know of cases in our constituencies in which family members have moved into their parents’ or other relatives’ homes to act as carers. It is an act of love that can place tremendous strain on the carers, and the commitment it requires should not be underestimated. Nor, on a more transactional level, should the amount of money they save the Treasury be underestimated. Age UK, in its submission to the Bill Committee, wrote:
	“Given the contribution of carers, they deserve to succeed to a tenancy or have an offer of alternative social housing with a lifetime tenancy.”

Andrew Stunell: Does the hon. Lady accept that the Bill will give registered landlords the opportunity to have tenancy agreements that allow carers to succeed to a tenancy even if they are not related to the person holding the original tenancy? The Bill will give landlords that flexibility for the first time, not take anything away.

Alison Seabeck: Yet again, this is all about discretion and saying, “Trust us.” I am afraid that we would like to see something clearer in the Bill.
	Live-in siblings are another group for whom there should be statutory succession. Once again, we can all look at our constituency experience. During the passage of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman said:
	“It is profoundly unfair that carers and siblings who cohabit are disadvantaged on the death of one or other of them by being forced out of their home by their tenancy terms”.—[Official Report, 12 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 188.]
	That legislation was the wrong place for that debate. This Bill is the right place, and our amendments would address the issue. Something else that ought to be addressed, and which we sought to address in Committee, is the right of unmarried couples. I am pleased that the Government seem to have shelved the idea of giving £2 a week—or whatever it was—to get married. However, the Bill gives newlyweds more succession rights to a tenancy than a cohabiting unmarried couple who have shared a home for decades, even when those newlyweds have cohabited for only a matter of days. That is not fair or appropriate. If passed unamended, clause 134 would not reflect modern family life for many families in Britain.
	The Minister said in Committee that there was some tidying up to be done. I acknowledge that Government amendments 194 to 201 try to improve the provisions and address the succession issues. In so far as they represent a degree of Government movement since Committee, I welcome those amendments. I also welcome the Minister’s acknowledgment at the time that the Bill was far from perfect. A host of Government amendments have been tabled—more than the norm on Report—which largely reflects the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny that the Bill received and the rushed consultations.
	I shall try to get through our remaining amendments as quickly as possible. On the right of tenants to complain directly to the housing ombudsman, we oppose clause 153 and seek to remove it with amendment 278. Clause 153 would require tenants to seek permission and approval from their elected representatives to complain about their social landlord to the housing ombudsman. We support the National Housing Federation position on this issue. Amendment 278 would allow tenants the
	right to complain directly, as they can now. The National Housing Federation represents landlords, who possibly have the most to lose from the change, yet they are very relaxed about allowing tenants that direct link.
	New clauses 24 and 25 seek to clamp down on loopholes in housing law that can be exploited by fraudsters and to deal with the issue of fairness—on which the Minister, he say yes! I am grateful to him for acknowledging that we brought to his attention something on which he thinks he can build. I look forward to seeing further amendments in the other place. When it comes to fairness in the allocation of homes and the transparency of the process, we felt that the local authorities in the cases that we highlighted needed a right of redress. Neither case is sub judice. They were highlighted for us by Arden Chambers, and they are Birmingham v. Qasim and Newport v. Charles. We would be grateful if both cases could be looked at in detail and amendments brought forward.
	There are a host of issues concerning homelessness that, given enough time, deserve to be debated properly on the Floor of the House. However, given the constraints on Report, it is neither appropriate nor possible to give them another airing or vote on them all, as we did in Committee. I am sure that a number of those issues will be raised again in another place, given the depth of expertise there. In Committee, we sought a requirement for better standards in the private rented sector—a point touched on by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert)—through proposals for an accreditation scheme. I would support any move in the other place to resurrect that and look at it in more detail.

Stephen Gilbert: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for indicating her party’s support for such a proposal. It could be quite transformative if the Government, while discharging the homelessness duties into the private rented sector, were to become a big purchaser of services in that sector, and we could drive up standards through an accreditation scheme. Does she agree with me on that?

Alison Seabeck: The hon. Gentleman knows that I agree. I tabled the amendments in Committee proposing exactly that, so the answer is yes. We tabled those amendments because we wanted to see an end to homeless applicants being placed in sub-standard or unsafe accommodation. Sadly, the Government rejected those amendments, and we shall have to wait to see how the matter pans out in the other place.
	In Committee, we also sought to improve the advice offered to people presenting as homeless, but that, too, was rejected, as was our amendment to ensure that the Government’s changes to housing benefit would not leave families intentionally homeless. The Government also rejected our amendment to ensure that any private sector accommodation into which homeless applicants were placed should be deemed to be affordable, although the Minister has mentioned taking affordability into account. An amendment seeking to prevent homelessness through better advice, with statutory guarantees on the quality of that advice, was also rejected. The hon. Members for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and for St Austell and Newquay expressed similar concerns, but sadly, they withdrew all their amendments and held the coalition
	line. I hope that we will be able to convince some Members on the Government Benches to join us in the Lobby today because of the Government’s failure to listen to the arguments that we and they made in Committee. I am sure that their colleagues in the Lords will also look closely at these issues.
	More than 160,000 people presented as homeless last year, and I am disappointed that a Bill that will have a profoundly negative impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people has returned to the Floor of the House after its Committee stage, and after a lengthy pause, with no amendments to address the criticisms and concerns of charities and experts who deal with homelessness on a day-to-day basis. Two very good reports have been published in the past fortnight. One from Crisis, on single homelessness, flags up the areas in which the most can and should be done to prevent homelessness. The other, from the Homeless People’s Commission, points out that offering better advice will save the Exchequer money.
	The Bill is a retrograde step. Homeless applicants found to be in priority need and unintentionally homeless will no longer be able to draw on the security and stability of a social home with security of tenure. Instead, they will be placed directly into the private rented sector and if they refuse an offer, for whatever reason, the local authority will no longer have a duty to house them. They would then have almost nowhere to turn for help. It does not take much to realise the circumstances in which an offer might be unacceptable to an applicant. The accommodation might be too expensive, too far away from their child’s school—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter)—or too close to an abusive ex-partner. It might also be damp, mouldy or unsafe—the list goes on. Key among all this is the insecurity that a private rented sector offer can sometimes bring. There was a very good article in Inside Housing this week, following a survey that clearly showed that a homeless person placed in the private rented sector was likely to face eviction very early, and to be turned around and around in a circle of homelessness.
	The third biggest cause of statutory homelessness last year was the loss of an assured shorthold tenancy. As I said earlier, stability is vital in order to prevent what people have referred to as the revolving door of homelessness. With tenancies in the private rented sector being less stable and of a shorter duration, the risk of recurring homelessness is greater, so the need for stronger statutory protection increases. Amendments 273, 274, 275, 276 and 360, taken together, would extend the period within which the homelessness duty would recur from two years to five years when the applicant was placed in the private rented sector. They would also provide, during that five year period, that a household accepted as homeless should receive “reasonable preference” on their local authority’s housing allocation scheme.
	Under amendment 269, the duty of local authorities to find temporary accommodation for a period that enables the homeless person to find accommodation themselves would be extended to intentionally and unintentionally homeless people who were not in priority need. It is important to note that this duty to accommodate for long enough to give reasonable opportunities to
	secure other accommodation is distinct from the main homelessness duty. Extending this provision to those not in priority need would help an individual facing a crisis who might just need some short-term accommodation to get back on their feet. It would give the individual and the authority the opportunity to work towards resolving their homelessness, perhaps outside the social sector, helping to ensure that no one faced a situation with no option but to sleep rough.
	On that point, perhaps I can press the Minister to tell us whether the rumours on the street are correct—that his Department is considering announcing that no one should sleep rough for more than one night. Do these rumours have any foundation? If so, does he expect to table amendments in the other place to deal with the issue and what will be the additional funding alongside it?
	I am sure that the Minister will have noted the story of Chris, a young homeless person in crisis in a recent Crisis publication, “The Hidden Homeless”. Told that he was not entitled to succeed to the tenancy of a social home in which he had been living and caring for his grandmother for 15 years up to her death—this brings me back to my earlier point about succession—Chris found himself homeless and without decent advice or support from the local authority. As a consequence, he slept rough, broke into buildings for shelter, ended up with a criminal record and no break from the cycle of homelessness. Something must be done to address this; the Government’s Bill falls far short of the mark. I hope the Minister will reconsider his position on our amendments to deal with the problem.
	Amendment 270 would ensure that, whenever possible, any homeless applicant to be placed in the private rented sector is offered somewhere within the borders of their own local authority first. The point has already been made. For a family with children, this will be essential to avoid having to pull the children out of school, and it is always preferable for reasons of community and stability not to make people move out of an area, except where there are valid reasons such as domestic violence, when a placement out of district might be preferable. There are going to be pressures, given the changes coming to housing benefit, so I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions will bear that in mind.
	If the Government are insistent that they wish to place homeless applicants directly into the private rented sector, it is only right for them to acknowledge the need to strengthen protections for the very predictable outcome of their choices. Evidence shows that homeless people housed in the private rented sector are more likely to be evicted.
	Let me finish by saying that it is not just this Bill’s provisions that give cause for alarm, as changes to housing benefit will increase homelessness and rough sleeping. We have already seen homelessness increase by some 15% since this Government came into office. The Government’s consultation on statutory duties on local authorities has seen Tory councils like Hammersmith and Fulham viewing it as an opportunity to scale back their duties to homeless people, while Westminster council has been busy trying to ban soup kitchens.
	If we had several days to debate this Bill on the Floor of the House, we could easily fill that time, as many issues deserve to be debated—not least issues of supply, whether or not the new homes bonus will work, and why the planning Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, yesterday brought forward an amendment at the behest of the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who is obviously getting desperate: houses are not being built and his new homes bonus needs a kick-start, so he is trying to buy planning permissions. We could have had an entire debate on that provision alone. As I say, many issues deserve to be debated and I have no doubt that my noble Friends in the other place will seek to pursue these areas when they eventually get their hands on the Bill.
	Our new clauses and amendments are designed to defend mixed communities, to extend protections and advice to homeless people, to stand up for security and stability for low-income families and to prevent the segregation of those sections of our society that this Bill will surely deliver. I urge colleagues of all parties to join us in the Lobby on amendments 13 and 271, which we intend to press to the vote.

Andrew Percy: I wish to discuss amendments 13 and 271, and in doing so to draw on my experience of serving for 10 years as a local councillor in the city of Hull in east Yorkshire. I represented a large council estate, including the house in which my dad grew up, as well as the three-bedroom house in which my grandma lived until the day she died, because it was her home.
	I have no problem with the concept of flexible tenancies, and I think that councils should be given tools enabling them to offer some form of flexibility. However, although I broadly support the Bill—an odd feature of this place is that Members tend to get to their feet when they are unhappy rather than happy about something, but I assure Ministers that there are plenty of provisions in the Bill about which I am perfectly happy—I should like to be given a few more details. The Bill states that local authorities may offer flexible tenancies, but I should like to see more commitment with regard to the proportion that they should offer, and also an absolute guarantee that they will continue to offer secure tenancies.
	The Bricknell estate, which I used to represent, illustrated the importance of mixed tenure. We had some problems. People lived in three-bedroom houses long after their children had left. The worst experience that I used to have at my surgeries was being asked by people after someone had died, “May we please have their house?” People were literally on death watch trying to obtain homes. I do not pretend that there is not a problem with people living in homes that are too big for them. However, they should not be forced out of their homes, to which they have a sentimental attachment. I do not want some official from the local authority to turn up all of a sudden and tell people whose children happen to have left home that under the terms of their flexible tenancies their time is up, and they must move on and make a home somewhere else.

Anne Main: My hon. Friend is making an interesting point, but the fact is that many people downsize whether they are in social housing or not. They should not be forced out, but offering them alternative accommodation might be a solution.

Andrew Percy: My local authority had a clear policy. Housing officers would talk to tenants and try to encourage them to move into smaller, more appropriate accommodation if it was available, although of course it is not always available. There is nothing wrong with that, but I understood from the Minister’s response that people might end up in the courts when the terms of their flexible tenancies were enforced, and might effectively be forced out of their homes.
	I am also worried about the two-year period. One of the problems on our estate was the difficulty of making people feel part of the estate and part of the community. A transitional arrangement, with people coming in for two years and then being forced out and different people coming in for another two years, does not help to maintain the sustainability and viability of the community.

Stephen Gilbert: My hon. Friend is making a number of excellent points. Does he agree that the Government cannot create a big society and increase community cohesion if we continue to move people around?

Andrew Percy: I agree. We experienced several problems of antisocial behaviour in the community that I used to represent, but we dealt with them over a period. After a while, people who had moved in from outside the area started to appreciate the community in which they were living and became part of it. Children befriended other children at the local school, and their parents then befriended one another. The sense of community was protected, which had a major impact on what had been huge antisocial behaviour problems. We had a sustainable community in which people had invested and in which they wanted to remain. There is a risk here. If people are constantly moving after short periods of time, they might not look after their houses and gardens. That may sound a bit silly, but the condition of houses and gardens gives an impression of what a community is like. If people feel they have a personal investment in their homes, they will maintain their gardens and do work to their properties; they will have some pride in the house in which they live, because they see it as their home.

Alison Seabeck: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case. Does he accept that because such rapid turnover of tenants will inevitably result in a lack of care for properties, lenders on housing association properties in particular will start getting nervous about their investment and may want to revisit their loan books and reduce their investment in certain properties?

Andrew Percy: That is an interesting point, and I hope all Members would want to avoid that, but it is a possible consequence of short-term tenancies. If authorities are to be allowed to offer flexible tenancies, I would prefer there to be a requirement on them to continue to offer secure tenancies as well so that people can work towards that and so that there is at least some tenure mix.
	On the point about housing officers turning up at the end of a secure tenancy and suggesting to the tenant that it is time for them to move on, the issue of what independent advice will be available to tenants has been raised. I would not want tenants to go through a court process and, perhaps, end up being forced out of their home without ever having had access to the correct and appropriate advice.
	If we are to take into account the structures of modern families, tenants cannot simply be told, “You have a three-bedroom house and two people have moved out, so you’re only using one bedroom,” because family members frequently move out and back in again. Where is the security for the parent and for the kid who pops off to university or to do a job somewhere else, or who moves out because they are in a relationship which then ends so they want to return to the family home? I keep using the word “home” because these properties are not merely a facility that belongs to the council—although I suppose legally they are that. They are much more than that, however, so where is the security for the young person who moves out and then wishes to return home? I have absolutely no doubt that these proposals have been made with the best of intentions. On the estate I represented we had huge problems with such patterns of occupation and young people not having a chance to get a home, but we do not want to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

Anne Main: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, but I have to say that young families who are seeking a home—very much like ambulance chasers, although I am not saying they are like ambulance chasers—come to my surgery. This issue works both ways, and unless my hon. Friend comes up with an alternative solution, the proposal before us has to be considered as a creative thought that is worth exploring.

Andrew Percy: The radical solution that I have always favoured—which is not very popular among my party colleagues—is that we should build more council houses, and I am pleased that Conservative-run East Riding of Yorkshire council in my constituency is, indeed, building more council houses in Goole, as it recognises there is a need there.
	I think I did offer a solution to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), however. I said that I wanted better protection in the Bill so that we can ensure that secure tenancies are guaranteed and will continue. I have nothing against a proportion of council housing stock being made available for flexible tenancies, and as the Minister said, local authorities can certainly determine to do that. However, I fear that, particularly where there is high demand and limited stock, some local authorities will make decisions that will mean we end up with a situation where nobody can ever work towards having a secure tenancy. I would not want that at all.
	We heard much about tenure standards from the Minister, and we had many assurances on that. Perhaps if he gets more than 16 seconds to respond to the debate, we can have a little more detail about those standards and how robust they will be. I agree there is a problem here, which is why I have concerns about amendment 13 on the basis that it takes out flexible tenancies entirely. Amendment 271 perhaps has more going for it.
	I just hope that Ministers will be able to offer me more assurances that if, after careful consideration, they decide that something a little more robust needs to be put in the Bill to protect tenants, they will make the
	appropriate changes in the House of Lords, Senate or whatever it is going to become at the appropriate time. I am not convinced that we could not have a situation where somebody who has been living in their home for five or 10 years is then suddenly dragged before the courts and removed from their home. I am sure that that is not what Ministers intend or what any local authority would want to see, but I am not convinced that the protection is robust enough in the Bill. I am sure that Ministers are discussing how those protections can be put in place, and I look forward to the response at some point in the future.

Ian Mearns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), the shadow Minister, for mentioning the new homes bonus, because people in Gateshead are considering what to do with the magnificent award of £68,000 that we have been given by the Government under the new homes bonus. That is approximately 28p per head of population to spend on the development of new homes within the borough of Gateshead. However, I do not want to discuss that today, because I want to talk about my new clause 23. I declare an interest, because I had assistance in drafting my new clause from staff at the Local Government Association, and I am a vice-president of that organisation.
	New clause 23 proposes that the Bill should be amended to include a provision to support local authorities in reducing the level of littering from vehicles. The Bill provides an excellent opportunity to amend section 87 in part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to enable local authorities to deal specifically with littering from vehicles. Such an approach would help to reduce the high level of litter, not only at road junctions, roundabouts and exits from service areas, which are difficult to clean up, but in our streets generally. The new clause fits with the overall aims of the legislation, and with the specific new powers for local authorities to tackle persistent fly-posting and graffiti.
	Anyone who wanders around the streets of Britain will notice that litter thrown from vehicles is a problem affecting the cleanliness of highways and roadside verges, creating cleansing issues for many local authorities up and down the country. Furthermore, many drivers and passengers feel that they are anonymous when they throw litter from vehicles. The introduction of a specific offence where the owner of a vehicle is held responsible for such littering, unless they can prove otherwise, would discourage drivers and their passengers from throwing litter. Such an offence would also provide a further means for local authorities to tackle the growing problems of roadside litter.
	Littering from vehicles is a major issue for the public. In 2009, Keep Britain Tidy launched a campaign to encourage members of the public to report incidents of littering from vehicles. Although the campaign ended two years ago, more than 9,500 such reports were received from members of the public. We have all seen drivers who smoke depositing the contents of their ashtrays on the kerbside, usually not in their own street but in someone else’s or, as is common, around the country. We have all witnessed soft drinks containers, fast food wrappers, residue from fruit, half-eaten sandwiches and much worse being flung from moving vehicles or being deposited from a vehicle parked at the side of the road when a snack break is over.

Jeremy Corbyn: I endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. Is he also aware that those of us who cycle face a danger from unthinking motorists who open their window and throw rubbish out, and that is an assault on cyclists?

Ian Mearns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, with which I wholeheartedly concur. I was going to come on to that. It is mainly cyclists, pedestrians and local residents who have to negotiate their way through the mess that is left. This selfish, antisocial and irresponsible activity must be curtailed.
	In London, the power to tackle littering from vehicles was recently introduced by the London Local Authorities Act 2007. Section 24 gives a London borough council the power to serve a penalty charge notice on the registered keeper of a vehicle if any passenger throws litter from it. In that case, the use of a penalty charge notice rather than a fixed penalty notice means that that is a civil offence rather than a criminal one. Furthermore, due to defective drafting, the 2007 Act is not active until amending legislation has been given Royal Assent. I propose that the enforcement section of the Localism Bill should be amended to include a reference to vehicle related litter. That would follow on from the commitment to finding a solution to the problem made by Lord Henley, the Minister responsible for local environmental quality, at the national litter convention in December last year.
	New clause 23 has legislative precedent and is in line with the legislation on other road traffic investigation and fly-tipping offences and the approach taken to littering from vehicles in the 2007 Act. The Government have a chance today to do something about the problem and I hope that they will do so. I am convinced that the vast majority of the public whom we serve would not regard new clause 23 as contentious in any respect whatsoever.

Annette Brooke: I shall be very brief, as I wish my colleagues to have time to make their quite important contributions. We have some concerns about the issues raised this afternoon.
	Let me start with new clause 26, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I was pleased with the Minister’s response. The clause aims to free small fully mutual housing co-operatives from burdensome regulation and significant costs that they cannot and really should not have to shoulder in the same way as private landlords. This would obviously help to provide a more conducive environment for new housing co-operatives and would not cost the Government much money. I know it fits in well with the coalition Government’s agenda for community self help and a mutual approach. That and other innovative schemes will, I hope, emerge from the Bill.
	I also want to endorse the amendments on arm’s length management organisations. I, too, urge the Minister to consider a ballot if there is a question of bringing things in house, whatever the circumstances. Poole Housing Partnership, which is an excellent and outstanding ALMO, has provided a lot for our local communities over and beyond good housing stock. I want to put that on the record.
	Let me turn now to the key issues we have discussed this afternoon. Is there a place for flexible tenancies? We must ask that question. I think there is a place for
	flexible tenancies, but is there a case for two-year flexible tenancies? That question really needs to be addressed in the other place. I would hate to see the churn that might happen. I also think that the idea of a mix of tenancies, from a minimum of, say, five years through to secure tenancies, probably has quite a lot to offer. We should not need to be prescriptive from the centre. We ought to be enabling local authorities, but obviously some alarming information has been put before us today and that means that the regulatory side will have to be very secure.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Annette Brooke: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I would like to be brief so that my colleagues can get in.
	I want to put on record my concern about the two-year tenancies. True, it is said that they will be exceptions but there is a big “but” once we start using the term “exceptions”. The Liberal Democrats want this issue to be revisited in the House of Lords. It is incredibly important to get it right.
	Let me briefly address the homelessness issue. Having a roof over one’s head by having something in the private sector might be a good option. However, the point has been made—and I have to go along with it—that we must look at all the individual circumstances such as whether there has been domestic violence and whether there are children in the family who have to be able to access their current school. If they have experienced trauma, it is important that they stay in their school.
	As yesterday, time is incredibly short and we are left with very important issues to address, which will affect people’s lives, and we have no time to get to the bottom of them. That is why it is so important that as we pass this Bill to the other place, we do so with a lot of questions.

Clive Betts: May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) on her effective criticism of the Government’s proposals on security of tenure? Her comments were excellent and I thoroughly support them.
	I also give credit to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who made some very perceptive comments. The reality is that people will be dragged out of their homes at the end of a flexible tenancy and told, “That is no longer your home.” If people resist, they will be dragged in front of the courts and evicted. That is what is going to happen; there is no getting away from that. He was absolutely right to say that it changes the status of the offer that is made to someone at the beginning of a tenancy from offering them a home that will be theirs for as long as they want it, as long as they abide by the tenancy rules, to offering them a temporary residence. With that temporary residence comes the risk of temporary schooling, temporary communities and all the problems that the hon. Gentleman rightly identified, such as lack of community stability and the possibility of simply creating estates of people on benefits who are moved out as soon as they get off benefits and get a job because their tenancy is then brought to an end. That is not the sort of arrangement that I want to see.

Jeremy Corbyn: I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. Is there not a strange contrast here in that Parliament is apparently about to vote to take away
	permanent tenancies for new council tenants but the Government would not dream of doing the same thing for owner-occupiers or others in our society? Why should we demote council tenants to this level of insecurity?

Clive Betts: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. These measures are changing the status of council tenants, downgrading them almost to second-class citizens. That is what this effectively means, and it is creating a form of welfare housing. There will be people who are so desperate for security that they will over-extend themselves in trying to become owner-occupiers, which could lead to real problems. I say to the Liberal Democrats that they should not hide behind the idea that the measures are all right because existing tenants will not be affected or because local authorities will have to choose whether to go for these forms of tenancies. The reality is that, currently, as long as people abide by the rules, they cannot be evicted from council or housing association properties—they cannot have their tenancy ended by their landlord—but under the Bill that will be possible, and if Liberal Democrats vote for the provisions, they will be allowing that to happen.
	Let me say one thing about the homelessness provisions. It might surprise some to hear that I am not, in principle, against local authorities being able to discharge their homelessness responsibilities by making an offer in the private rented sector, but I do want to see clear safeguards. If a house becomes available in my constituency, where some areas have very limited social housing, it is by no means apparent to me that someone who has just become homeless should get that property as opposed to someone who has been in the private rented sector waiting on a housing list for six years. However, if an offer is made, it has to be made with the standards of the private rented property being approved by the local authority, with the landlord or their agent being part of an accredited scheme—probably with regular inspections to make sure that the property is kept to a reasonable standard—and with a minimum tenancy length. I would certainly want those conditions to be included.
	Finally, let me address new clause 3, which is in my name. I heard the Minister’s comments but I still feel that a ballot is the best way of ensuring that the views of ALMO tenants are really taken into account and that we do not simply have consultations in which the tenants say one thing and the local authority does another, which are already happening. A ballot is the best way forward, but if the Minister is saying that the same process that was used to set up an ALMO should be used to dismantle it, he must firm up the guidance and make it a statutory obligation for local authorities to comply with that. I see him nodding, and that is very good.

Andrew Stunell: I did give that assurance; we certainly are going to take a very close look at the point that the hon. Gentleman is raising.

Clive Betts: The Housing Minister has said that he is prepared to have a meeting with me and other officers of the parliamentary all-party group on arms length management organisations. The information we have got from the National Federation of ALMOs, with which we recently had a very good meeting, shows that,
	in a number of cases, local authorities have simply been flouting the correct processes. Councils are saying, “We are going to get rid of your ALMO; it doesn’t matter what you say—it’s going.” They are then putting factually inaccurate reports to housing committees. They are not offering people a real choice in the consultation, they are not explaining the facts, and they are not presenting balanced arguments. They talk about saving money on the general fund as one reason for getting rid of ALMOs. They do not refer to the new proposals on self-finance or the Government’s reforms.
	All those facts are being kept from tenants in unbalanced, one-sided consultations. I hear what the Minister says. I shall not press the new clause, and I look forward to further discussions with him and his colleagues about the best way of constructing the measure to get the best deal for ALMO tenants and to ensure that in the end they make the decisions which affect their homes.

Gordon Henderson: Like the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), I shall speak not about housing, but about litter, and I shall say a little about new clause 33. The new clause would extend street litter control notices to office buildings by amending the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Although this is only a minor amendment, it would have a major impact on the ability of local authorities to clean up their streets.
	Four years ago I launched a project in my constituency called Litter Angels to highlight the nuisance of litter. The idea of Litter Angels—which has now applied for charitable status, so I suppose I should declare an interest as one of the trustees—is to work with our local primary schools to educate children about the harm that litter does to our local environment. We take the view that catching them young might encourage more of them to practise good habits as they get older.
	More recently, Litter Angels launched a “Big Clean Up” campaign in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, which is encouraging local groups and individuals to commit to undertaking at least one project to clean up our local area. The “Big Clean Up” will take place during August, and I am proud that my constituency was one of the first in the country to embrace the national “Love Where You Live” campaign being run by Keep Britain Tidy.
	It was Keep Britain Tidy which highlighted to me a particular problem with smoking-related litter, with which new clause 33 deals. Sections 93 and 94 of the 1990 Act give local authorities the power to issue street litter control notices on premises that have a frontage on a street and outside of which litter or refuse is causing a defacement of the land. The problem is that the legislation was originally envisaged to tackle fast food litter and other such rubbish, and pre-dated the ban on smoking in public buildings and places of work. The House might be surprised to learn that the latest local environment quality survey of England revealed that smoking-related litter is present on 76% of the sites surveyed and is the most frequently found litter type.
	Much of that smoking-related litter can be found outside office buildings. Unfortunately, street litter notices cannot normally be served on office buildings unless they sell food and drink, whether or not for consumption
	on the premises—for example, from a canteen or snack kiosk. Extending the street litter notice provisions to include office buildings would provide local authorities with the means to deal with localised litter problems and would close an unintended loophole in the legislation. The new clause would also allow local authorities to require occupiers or owners of offices and non-food retail outlets to play a greater role in dealing with the scourge of litter and encourage members of the public to take increased responsibility for their litter.
	It is worth pointing out that in June 2007 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs undertook a final regulatory impact assessment on the extension of street litter control notices. This was as a response to the potential impact of the smoking ban on littering and its extension to office buildings. That assessment confirmed that if local authorities were able to issue street litter control notices in respect of offices and other venues not currently covered by the provisions, it would give them the power to place a greater responsibility on the occupiers or owners of those premises to clean up, particularly the smoking-related litter in the area immediately around them, perhaps by installing appropriate disposal facilities where this form of littering is a significant problem.
	The assessment noted that such a proposal was in line with changes introduced by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, which followed the “polluter pays” principle by improving the powers available to local authorities to take action. A cost-benefit analysis undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in June 2007 calculated that such a proposal would result in a net benefit to society overall because notices would be issued only in a minority of cases and that costs imposed on local authorities and businesses would be relatively small and outweighed by the benefits associated with improved amenity, reduced cleaning costs resulting from preventive measures, and a reduced fire risk.
	To allow notices to be issued in respect of any type of office premises, rather than the current limited number of offices, the new clause proposes to widen the definition set out in section 94(l)(a) in part IV of the 1990 Act by omitting reference to “commercial or retail premises” and inserting “premises other than dwellings”—I draw the House’s attention to a typing error in today’s amendment paper, which shows “premium” rather than “premises”. My proposal has a legal precedent in London, where street litter control notice powers are currently extended to office buildings by part III of the London Local Authorities Act 2000, which, in reference to the 1990 Act, explicitly omits the words “commercial or retail premises” and substitutes the words “premises other than dwellings” for notices issued in the capital. All I seek to do is extend that principle to other areas of the country.
	Additionally, section 93(2) of the 1990 Act states that the local authority may serve a street litter control notice
	“on the occupier or, if the premises are unoccupied, on the owner of the premises”.
	As office buildings may have multiple occupancy, I propose an amendment specifying that notices may be issued on the owner of any premises where there is multiple occupancy. New clause 33 is uncontroversial
	and designed simply to close a loophole in the current legislation. I hope that the Minister will agree to include it in this important Bill.

Nick Raynsford: I draw attention to the interest I declared at the beginning of the Bill’s passage through the House and again in Committee.
	It is, in my view, a sad day for housing when we come to consider this Bill on Report, as it involves a series of retrograde steps that are damaging to the future housing prospects of millions of our fellow citizens, weaken tenant rights and safeguards for homeless people, and undermine the future of social housing in this country.
	It is particularly sad that we have had most of the debate during the extraordinary absence of the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who is responsible for this and yet graced us with his attendance for only a few minutes in a previous sitting and has made no contribution whatsoever to the passage of the Bill through the House. That is an extraordinary comment on his values. His approach, which the Government have adopted since coming to power last year, has been to cut drastically the funding for social housing, including a massive 65% reduction to the Homes and Communities Agency budget.
	We are seeing individual rights cut back, such as tenant rights for homeless people. There is a curious element in this that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) hinted at in his impressive contribution. He rightly highlighted the fact that the Government are giving greater priority to the interests of the providers of housing than to the public, the customer and the user of services. That is not compatible with normal Conservative rhetoric, and we have heard, again and again, their attack on provider interests and their wish to support the position of the customer and the user of services, but not here. Tenants’ rights and the rights of homeless people are being cut back, and when we argue that point we get the answer, “Don’t worry, because the providers will do the right thing. They will look after the interests of tenants. They will give lots of security, they won’t undermine tenants’ security and they will look after the interests of homeless people. Trust the providers.”
	That is an interesting stance for the Government to take in this policy area, because in almost every other we hear a completely different rhetoric—the rhetoric of increasing the power and the influence of the customer, of the user of the service. Indeed, this Bill contains a great many passages where exactly that has motivated the Government, so there is a curious disconnect between the Government’s rhetoric and what they are doing on housing. The only way I can explain it is by saying that they clearly have no interest at all in the future of social housing or in the interests of the people who live in social housing or depend on it for their future prospects.

Andrew Stunell: We do have a concern: it is for the 5 million people who are waiting for social housing, and about trying to make a better fit between the houses and homes that we have and the people who desperately need them.

Nick Raynsford: Were that true the Government would not have cut the Homes and Communities Agency investment budget by 65%. This Bill is the fig leaf presented by the Government to cover their embarrassment
	at their failure to provide adequately for the needs of social housing in the years ahead, and it is shameful that the Minister should try to cover that policy by pretending that they are acting in the interests of the homeless and the badly housed.

Andrew Stunell: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says, but will he not acknowledge that at the end of 13 years of Labour government there were fewer social homes in this country than there were at the start? At the end of this period of government there will be more than there were when we started.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. There is no way in which there will be more social homes, because he knows perfectly well that the only social homes provided will be provided because the previous Government funded them, and that most of the homes for which this Government will be responsible will be the so-called affordable homes—although that is a travesty of English, given that they are based on the principle of 80% of market rents, which will in many cases be a real test of affordability—and homes that are created as flexible tenancies under the Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, because we have debated it and I am sorry he cannot acknowledge it, that the previous Government inherited from their predecessor the most disgraceful backlog of poor condition housing in the social sector and rightly concentrated investment in the early years on putting that backlog right. A huge number of tenants now live in decent homes because of the Labour Government’s work, but that Government also allowed those tenants who wanted to buy their homes to do so, and that inevitably accounted for some reduction in the volume of social housing.

Alison Seabeck: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that in the five years between 2005 and 2010 the Labour Government built more than 250,000 affordable homes? In the five years between 2010 and 2015, we expect at most 150,000. Is that not pretty pathetic?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point that I entirely endorse. It shows that the Minister’s claim was entirely incorrect, and he should be ashamed of making it.
	The first amendment in my name, amendment 361, is about security of tenure. It is not the wrecking amendment that the Minister tried to pretend it is. It simply states:
	“In preparing its tenancy strategy a local authority must ensure that to the greatest extent possible, tenancies granted in its area provide security of tenure so as to support and develop stable and confident communities.”
	That is absolutely in keeping with the intelligent comments of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on how there is a place for flexible tenancies, but they should not take over, and to the greatest extent possible we should try to support security and help to build stable communities.
	That is the purpose of the amendment, and I cannot understand why the Government are reluctant to accept it. I give the Minister one last chance. If he wants to be held to have any real credibility on the issue, he should accept it, because it would indicate that he is not simply performing a sleight of hand that will deny tenants
	security, but is genuinely interested in maximising the number of tenants who enjoy security of tenure. That would at least be a step in the right direction, and I hope that the Government will change their mind. I note, however, that he did not bother to respond to my question about why they have not accepted the amendment on a minimum of five years, so perhaps I might do a little better on this second try.
	Amendment 362 is designed to safeguard the Government against embarrassment. As the Minister will know, because we debated it in Committee, this is about the incompatibility of the phrasing of the Bill with article 8 of the European convention on human rights, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in two recent judgments. The Supreme Court indicated that where tenants make representations against a possession action, the courts must have the discretion to consider whether it is proportionate to grant possession in the circumstances. That is clearly incompatible with the passage in the Bill that says that the courts must grant possession in all cases, without any doubt at all. I do not see how it is possible for the Secretary of State to have signed the statement saying that the wording of the Bill is compatible with article 8 when clearly it is not—or perhaps compatibility can apply only if it is put aside when cases come before the courts. It would be a rather odd position for a Minister to take if he was expecting the courts to ignore the wording of a Bill that he was putting before Parliament. In the interests of avoiding embarrassment for the Government, I hope that they will accept the amendment, which the Minister will know I have slightly amended to take account of one of the objections that he put up in Committee.
	The Minister entirely misinterpreted my purpose in tabling amendment 363, which was not to weaken tenancy standards but to safeguard housing associations from the risk of reclassification as public sector bodies. This is a long and complex story, and I will not go into it, but it was debated at length when the legislation creating the Tenant Services Authority was going through Parliament. I took a similar line then, from the Government side of the House, which is that while we want to see frameworks in place that ensure proper safeguards for standards, we should be very careful about creating a chain that goes directly from a ministerial fiat to an instruction to a housing association which could lead to the view being formed that they are no longer independent bodies that can be classified as being in the private sector, or not in the public sector. If such a change were to take place and housing associations were to become classified as public sector bodies, they could no longer borrow from the private sector without that counting against public expenditure. That would, at a stroke, wholly undermine the programme of housing association investment, and it would cause considerable financial embarrassment to the Government.
	I hope that the Government will think carefully about this. The individual, particular reference to standards would not necessarily, of itself, constitute sufficient grounds for the classification to be changed, but cumulatively the impact of an ever-increasing number of instances where the Secretary of State was able to instruct the Tenant Services Authority, or whatever body, to then instruct a housing association on how to act could lead to the view being formed that these are
	no longer bodies that are independent of the public sector. That is a very dangerous step. I tabled the amendment simply to advise the Government that this is a dangerous area that they need to think about carefully, because it could seriously undermine the whole funding of social housing in this country.
	Now that I have explained my amendments, I hope that the Government will be more thoughtful and reasonable in responding to them than was evident in the line that the Minister adopted earlier. If there is no change, I sincerely hope that all Members of this House who care about the future of social housing will vote to safeguard the interests of the public, users of the service, tenants and homeless people rather than those of the providers.

Simon Hughes: I remind the House that one of the new clauses and amendments in this group is my new clause 38. The Minister did not specifically refer to that in his introduction. I had helpful conversations with Ministers before tabling it, and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic towards it. I understand that it may not be possible to agree to it today, but obviously there will be other opportunities if the principle is accepted.
	My proposal deals with the straightforward point that, often, an existing occupier of land who is acting perfectly properly and within planning permission, such as a bakery, a print works or another business, is challenged by people who move in nearby—often it is residential occupiers, who in my constituency will have paid quite a large price for their property—who complain about the activity that was known to happen there when they moved in. People who had moved into Bermondsey street alongside the Ticino bakery, which has been there for decades, if not centuries, complained that there was a noise at 4 o’clock in the morning because people were baking bread. That complaint is completely unacceptable. People who had moved in opposite the print works on Surrey docks complained that vans came in and out in the middle of the night to deliver newspapers. That is not altogether surprising and is absolutely obvious. That complaint is therefore unacceptable. I could go on. People who move in next to farms complain about the cockerels crowing, people who move in next to churches complain about the bells ringing, and people who move in next to mosques complain about the imam calling people to prayer. Those complaints are all nonsense.
	I want it to be clear that caveat emptor—or caveat mover-in—is the principle that we should apply. The important point is that such unacceptable complaints threaten businesses. They threaten the livelihood of the farmer, the baker, the print works or the night club. My constituency is regularly afflicted by people who think that they have a right to complain, even though they are the Johnny or Joanna-come-lately. I hope that that issue can be dealt with.
	I will move on to the wider subjects in this group of amendments. I am very supportive of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who expressed her concern not that the Government are not listening, but that they may need to go further in the House of Lords to accommodate the points made by those of us who for years have had a passionate concern for social housing and council housing.
	I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). I, like him, have an absolute commitment to council property, and think that we should have more, not less, of it. I think that local authorities should be encouraged to build it, not discouraged from doing so. He speaks from his personal and constituency experience. I think that I am still the Member of Parliament who represents more council tenants than any other Member in England, so this issue is hugely important in my constituency.
	Of course we need to deal with under-occupying and with the fact that people may become council tenants when they are poor and then become very rich. It seems to me that the way to deal with that is not to evict them, but to ask them to pay more money for the property, so that rather than changing their status, the cost of the property reflects their ability to pay. Otherwise, communities are broken up. Social housing should provide people with a spare bedroom to deal with the flexibility of the household. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole referred to that issue. As they grow older, a couple may need two bedrooms rather than one. Somebody might need a carer or their family or friends to come and stay. I therefore hope that we will always assume that there should be a spare bedroom.
	Lastly, I hope that while accepting the principle of flexibility, the Government will have a presumption that the stability and security of communities is what we are striving for. Every year, about a quarter of the electors in my constituency move on or off the electoral roll. They do not necessarily move in or out of the constituency, but sometimes within it. I appreciate that the position in inner London is more extreme than elsewhere. However, we must build communities, and that is done by having more, not less, security. That does not mean that there should be no flexibility or that councils and other providers should have no ability to have tenancies that are not secure, but security of tenure should be the presumption. I hope that as the Bill goes from this place to the other place, the concerns from across the House will continue to be considered. This is not just an urban issue, but a rural one.
	I look forward to Ministers being positive about the noises that they have heard from Government Members, as well as from Opposition Members, this afternoon.

Sheila Gilmore: I rise to speak in support of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). There appears to be inherent conflict between different Bills that are proceeding through the House. I have been sitting on the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, and it seems to me that we are not looking at the whole picture. That Bill is concerned with, among other things, the amount of housing benefit that is paid out. There are concerns about the rising bill and what has to be done about it, and the Government are proposing measures to bring down the bill that will affect people up and down the country.
	At the same time, there are proposals in the Localism Bill that would have the opposite effect. For example, it would create so-called affordable houses at 80% of market rate. However, the people who need those houses, the people everybody is wringing their hands about, will not be able to afford those properties unless they can get
	housing benefit, which means that the housing benefit bill will rise. The Government are cutting benefit for some people and making their lives more difficult, but at the same time creating measures that will inherently increase the housing benefit bill.
	In the same way, increasing the use of the private rented sector for homeless families will have an effect on the housing benefit bill, because inevitably their rents will be higher than they would be if we could find genuinely and truly affordable homes for people. I am concerned that two parts of the Government appear to be proceeding in conflicting ways.
	Another aspect of welfare reform that we hear about constantly, in the Welfare Reform Bill Committee and elsewhere, is the need to make work pay and get people into employment, which we all agree about. Flexible tenancies may well have exactly the opposite effect. I was not on the Localism Bill Committee, so it may have been different there, but I noticed today that the one issue related to flexible tenancies that the Minister was comfortable in talking about was the vexed question of houses that are under-occupied or overcrowded. We all know that that is a problem, and it is not a simple one to address. Flexible tenancies are not only intended to address that situation, but that was what the Minister wanted to talk about. Perhaps it is the slightly more cuddly side of flexible tenancies. It might make people think, “Oh, I can see the point of that. We have to get a bit of flexibility to get that changed.”
	Actually, flexible tenancies are about much more than that. If they are implemented in the way suggested in some of the speeches that we have heard and the articles that we have read, it will mean that people who are trying to get back on their feet and have found jobs may be told that it is time to leave their home. What incentive does that give people to enter employment or work harder to increase their income?

Alison Seabeck: My hon. Friend is making some very strong points. Does she—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Could the hon. Lady turn around, so that the microphone picks up her voice and the whole House can hear her?

Alison Seabeck: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Does my hon. Friend share my surprise at the fact that the Minister has signed a number of early-day motions on the subject, including one clearly saying that is he a supporter of security of tenure, for all the reasons that we have been giving?

Sheila Gilmore: I certainly find that extremely surprising given what is in the Bill.
	We have to ask the Government why they are moving in different directions in different legislation and why they cannot get their act together. Surprisingly, however, there is an underlying similarity between the two Bills—they are about shrinking the welfare state and leaving only residual provision, whether it is residual housing for the poorest and neediest or residual benefits for the most vulnerable. That illustrates the difference between the Government and Opposition, about which we must be clear. There are inconsistencies in the Bills, but at the
	same time there is a united theme to which we are opposed. We are concerned that in four or five years, the welfare state will have shrunk out of all recognition.

Dan Rogerson: The key to social housing is longer-term tenure, which gives families, and particularly those with young children, confidence that they have a home for their family for the future. That is why we need to focus on the fact that social housing is meant to be not for short-term crisis accommodation but for family homes.
	I should preface my remarks by saying that I absolutely accept that my hon. Friend the Minister’s intention is to tackle the waiting list problem, which is a huge—[ Interruption. ] I hear an Opposition Member say, “Build more homes,” but as we all know, the waiting list is longer than it was when the Labour Government took office 13 years ago. We can therefore take that with a pinch of salt.
	I absolutely understand the Government’s aspirations to increase the availability of social housing, but we need to look at how we can increase and stretch shorter-term tenancies in the private sector, rather than reducing social housing tenancies to equivalent levels.
	I also accept that the Government are saying that the minimum level would not be an expectation, but, as we have already heard, some providers of social housing are taking it as such. Good councils and the better registered social landlords will not do that, but some will be waiting to implement that measure, which concerns me. I am worried about tenants when providers take that proposition seriously.
	We have more second homes than council houses in my area. The previous Government failed to tackle that huge problem, but I hope that this Government listen to what Cornwall Members and Members for other rural areas say about it. We need to look at how to ensure that those who are fortunate to get a social tenancy can have confidence that they can raise their family without fear of being moved on. People live in fear of being pushed into assured shorthold tenancies in the private sector, where they might be asked to move on every six months or so. We must avoid that situation.
	Although my hon. Friend the Minister’s intention is to provide good local authorities with the flexibility to use the measure when that might help, my worry is that the measure is not robust enough to stop others misusing it and making it the norm. That is where my concerns with new clause 21 lie.
	This is not Third Reading, but I should say that I am very keen on many aspects of the Bill. However, I am very concerned about the provisions on tenure. I should like a great deal of reassurance in that regard from those on the Treasury Bench before I join the Government in the Division Lobby.

John McDonnell: In two minutes, I shall try to make three points. I apologise for not being in the Chamber throughout the debate. I was here at the beginning, but then I attended a debate in Westminster Hall and chaired a meeting elsewhere.
	My first point is a warning, and it comes from the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). He asked whether tenants will be evicted when councils come round to inspect a
	property. The answer is that they will be—that is what will happen. Just as universities increased fees to £9,000, the bulk of councils will seize upon the two-year tenure rule. As a result, we will see the invidious inspection of properties to see how much people are earning, and there will be evictions. I give this warning to hon. Members: if this measure is enacted, MPs will be the first people those tenants will come to. On Monday, I tied to prevent a constituent from being evicted from a private rented property. She was being evicted not because she had not paid the rent and or because of antisocial behaviour, but simply because the landlord wanted the property back so that he could re-let it at a higher rent. That will happen time and again, and those who are evicted will come to our surgeries. I warn Members to be careful what they vote for tonight. The measure will cause untold suffering that will land on our doorsteps.
	My second point is a statement. The reality is that tonight is the end of council housing as we know it. The argument has been made that there is a turnover of 5% a year in tenancies. If so, within a generation nobody will be given a secure tenancy. We need to be aware of what voting for this legislation would mean: let us admit that it is the end of council housing.
	Thirdly, as someone who is proud to have been brought up in a council house in a thriving community, I do not understand why council tenants should be discriminated against in this way. We are not a different type of people: we, too, want secure accommodation; sometimes when our children grow up and leave, we enjoy that extra bedroom, or when things go wrong and they want to come home, we want them to be able to do so—but above all people want security. This is discriminatory legislation, and to be frank it discriminates on class grounds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, it is as though council house tenants are second-class citizens, yet their rents cover the costs of their properties—in fact, they subsidise others because of the amount they pay in relation to the cost of the property itself.
	For those three reasons, people need to think very carefully before voting tonight. People will interpret this measure as an attack on a large number of people, some of whom are vulnerable, and it will undermine the basis of housing in our country for a long time to come.

Martin Vickers: I will be brief, because many of my points have been made already. Indeed, I could have written the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for him. If he needs a speechwriter, I am readily available. My speech will contain some repetition, therefore.
	The Government’s aim not just in the Bill, but in all their policies, is to build and strengthen communities, but strong communities mean strong, stable and settled communities. I have a concern about the Bill, so I put this simple question to the Front-Bench team: how will the Bill and the tenancy provisions build stronger, more settled communities? I am afraid that I remain unconvinced. It has been said that people grow attached to their homes. They are not just bricks and mortar; they are homes, not houses. I suppose, in one sense, I speak from experience, because I was brought up in a council house. I can vaguely remember moving from Fuller street in Cleethorpes at the age of 5 to a new-build council house in the centre of Grimsby. No doubt that
	was under the enlightened Conservative Administration at the time and the targets determined by Harold Macmillan.
	I cannot get my head around the aim of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole used a line I gave him during one of his interventions: more flexibility for the landlord means more inflexibility for the tenant. What happens when children who have left home want to come back has not been satisfactorily dealt with. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) that a spare room for carers or returning children should always be available in a home. Ministers know of my concerns. I raised them with three Ministers in Committee and on Second Reading—I am sure that my Second Reading speech was bedtime reading for all Front-Bench Members—but to sum up: how will shorter tenancies help to achieve stable communities?

Andrew Stunell: I certainly have longer than yesterday, but not quite long enough to answer all the points raised.
	I start by saying that we absolutely and emphatically refute the argument that we are ending security of tenure for social housing tenants. We are not doing that. This is not the end of council housing or social tenancies. On spare rooms, I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) that the under-occupation figures that I quoted were for properties with more than one spare bedroom.
	The amendments are wide-ranging, but at their heart they are about not permitting a flexible tenancy arrangement at all, and about under no circumstances transferring families for whom the council has accepted a homelessness duty to the private rented sector. To my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who have raised concerns that there might be unscrupulous public landlords as well as unscrupulous private landlords I would say that the point of having a housing regulator and tenure and mobility standards is to provide a solid framework for the decisions that providers make when they draw up their housing strategies and tenancy policies, which they will be required to do in consultation with tenants too. There is a legislative framework, and there will be tough rules and guidelines. There is also the guide on homelessness, which sets out the factors that must be taken into account.
	Let me say to colleagues on both sides of the House that the Government are trying to help homeless families to get into satisfactory accommodation sooner, not handicap them. In relation to those who require social housing, our reform and the introduction of flexible tenancies will be one way of improving the fit and getting more of the 5 million people who need council housing into council housing. There are various myths, one of which is about the insecurity of the private rented sector. In fact, in the past three years only 8% of low-income households in the private rented sector moved because the tenancy was ended by the landlord. The other 92% moved because they wanted to move. We need to keep the facts of the case in proportion and try not to overdo the mythology.
	Let me deal with some of the other issues raised. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) for her kind words about our views on new clause 26. I have already responded to
	the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on the ALMOs legislation. To those who have raised their concerns about tenure security let me say that the guidelines on tenure standards will be available for inspection shortly.
	Let me deal now with those Members who have made specific proposals. I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) that I am making “sympathetic noises”—I think that is the correct phrase—even if the neighbours are not in his case. On new clause 23 and 33, let me tell the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns)—who was speaking, I thought, on behalf of the LGA—and to one of my hon. Friends who made the same point in relation to a separate amendment that we will certainly look carefully at the matters that have been raised.
	I am under strict instructions to stop promptly. I apologise to the House for not responding in the depth that I would have liked to the many points that have been raised. I have been listening, as have my colleagues, and we will obviously take forward the views that have been expressed and ensure that they are not overlooked when the Bill is considered in the other place in due course. I urge my hon. Friends to support the Government amendments this evening and to resist the Opposition amendments.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	New clause 19 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 130
	 — 
	Flexible tenancies

Amendment proposed: 13, page 114, line 36, leave out clause 130.—(Alison Seabeck.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 223, Noes 298.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 17 May).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
	Amendment proposed: 271,page115,line7, at end insert—
	‘(2A) Subsection (2) shall not apply to a secure tenancy if immediately before the tenancy was granted the person who became the tenant under the tenancy, or in the case of joint tenants, one or more of them was—
	(a) a secure tenant of the same or another dwelling-house, or
	(b) an assured tenant of a private registered provider of social housing or a registered social landlord (otherwise than under an assured shorthold tenancy) in respect of the same or another dwelling-house.’.—(Alison Seabeck.)
	Question proposed, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 227, Noes 294.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 134
	 — 
	Succession to secure tenancies

Amendments made: 191, page 121, line 36, at end insert—
	‘(1A) A person (“P”) is qualified to succeed the tenant under a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—
	(a) at the time of the tenant’s death the dwelling-house is not occupied by a spouse or civil partner of the tenant as his or her only or principal home,
	(b) an express term of the tenancy makes provision for a person other than such a spouse or civil partner of the tenant to succeed to the tenancy, and
	(c) P’s succession is in accordance with that term.’.
	Amendment 192,page121,line37, after ‘(1)’, insert ‘or (1A)’.
	Amendment 193,page121,line39, leave out ‘(whether or not the tenant’s spouse or civil partner)’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 135
	 — 
	Succession to assured tenancies

Amendments made: 194, page 122, line 40, at end insert—
	‘(1ZA) Subject to subsection (1B), in any case where—
	(a) there is an assured periodic tenancy of a dwelling-house in England under which—
	(i) the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing, and
	(ii) the tenant is a sole tenant,
	(b) the tenant under the tenancy dies,
	(c) immediately before the death, the dwelling-house was not occupied by a spouse or civil partner of the tenant as his or her only or principal home,
	(d) an express term of the tenancy makes provision for a person other than such a spouse or civil partner of the tenant to succeed to the tenancy, and
	(e) there is a person whose succession is in accordance with that term,
	then, on the death, the tenancy vests by virtue of this section in that person (and, accordingly, does not devolve under the tenant’s will or intestacy).’.
	Amendment 195,page123,line10, at end insert—
	‘(1ZA) Subject to subsection (1B), in any case where—
	(a) there is an assured tenancy of a dwelling-house in England for a fixed term of not less than two years under which—
	(i) the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing, and
	(ii) the tenant is a sole tenant,
	(b) the tenant under the tenancy dies,
	(c) immediately before the death, the dwelling-house was not occupied by a spouse or civil partner of the tenant as his or her only or principal home,
	(d) an express term of the tenancy makes provision for a person other than such a spouse or civil partner of the tenant to succeed to the tenancy, and
	(e) there is a person whose succession is in accordance with that term,
	then, on the death, the tenancy vests by virtue of this section in that person (and accordingly does not devolve under the tenant’s will or intestacy).’.
	Amendment 196,page123,line11, leave out ‘or’ and insert ‘, (1ZA),’.
	Amendment 197,page123,line11, after ‘(1A)’, insert ‘or (1AA)’.
	Amendment 198,page123,line14, leave out
	‘(whether or not the tenant’s spouse or civil partner)’ and insert ‘(and, accordingly, does not devolve under the tenant’s will or intestacy)’.
	Amendment 199,page123,line19, leave out from ‘housing’ to end of line 20.
	Amendment 200,page123,line23, at end insert—
	‘(4A) In subsection (5) after “(1)(b)” insert “or (1A)(c)”.’.
	Amendment 201,page123,line26, after ‘subsection’, insert ‘(1ZA), (1AA) or’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 139
	 — 
	Repairing obligations in leases of seven years or more

Amendments made: 202,page125,line11, at end insert ‘that—
	(i) is not a shared ownership lease, and
	(ii) is’.
	Amendment 203,page125,line12, at end insert—
	“(1B) In subsection (1A)—
	“assured tenancy” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Housing Act 1988;
	“secure tenancy” has the meaning given by section 79 of the Housing Act 1985; and
	“shared ownership lease” means a lease—
	(a) granted on payment of a premium calculated by reference to a percentage of the value of the dwelling-house or of the cost of providing it, or(b) under which the lessee (or the lessee’s personal representatives) will or may be entitled to a sum calculated by reference, directly or indirectly, to the value of the dwelling-house.”’.—
	(Greg Clark.)

Clause 152
	 — 
	Powers of the National Assembly for Wales

Amendment made: 204,page130,line4, leave out clause 152.—(Greg Clark.)

New Clause 22
	 — 
	Pre-commencement consultation

‘(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply for the purpose of determining whether there has been compliance with—
	(a) a requirement for consultation imposed by this Act,
	(b) a requirement for consultation which applies in relation to things done under an Act amended by this Act, or
	(c) a requirement (whether or not imposed by this Act) to do something in connection with a consultation under a requirement within paragraph (a) or (b).
	(2) The fact that a provision of this Act was not in force when consultation took place or anything was done in connection with a consultation is to be disregarded in determining whether there has been compliance with the requirement.
	(3) The fact that consultation was carried out by a body from whom functions are transferred by this Act, or anything was done by such a body in connection with a consultation, is to be disregarded in determining whether there has been compliance with the requirement by a body to whom those functions are transferred.
	(4) Subsection (3) is without prejudice to any other provision of this Act that applies to the transfer.
	(5) References in this section to a requirement imposed by this Act include a requirement imposed by another Act as a result of its amendment by this Act.’.—(Greg Clark.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

Clause 201
	 — 
	Orders and regulations

Amendments made: 221,page166,line4, leave out first ‘or’ and insert ‘, the Treasury or the’.—(Greg Clark.)
	Amendment 222,page166,line6, leave out first ‘or’ and insert ‘, the Treasury or the’.
	Amendment 223,page167,line14, at end insert—
	‘(10A) A statutory instrument that contains an order or regulations made by the Treasury under Schedule [Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions] is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 202
	 — 
	Power to make further consequential amendments

Amendments made: 224,page167,line41 , after ‘sections’, insert ‘8,9,’.
	Amendment 225,page167,line41, after ‘Parts’, insert ‘1A,’.—(Greg Clark.)

Schedule 24
	 — 
	Repeals and revocations

Amendments made: 226,page381,line13, at end insert—

Part 1A
	 — 
	Fire and rescue authorities

Reference Extent of repeal 
			 Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 Section 5. 
			  Section 19. 
			  Section 62(3).’. 
		
	
	Amendment 227,page381,line30, at end insert—
	
		
			 ‘ In section 18—   (a) subsections (4) and (5), and   (b) in subsection (6) the words “in Wales”.’. 
		
	
	Amendment 228,page382,line5, at end insert—
	
		
			 ‘ (aa) in subsection (2ZA) the words “in Wales”,’. 
		
	
	Amendment 229,page382,line6, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	
		
			 ‘ (b) subsection (2A)(a) and (b),’. 
		
	
	Amendment 230,page382,line13, at end insert—
	
		
			 ‘ (da) in subsection (10A) the words “in Wales”,’. 
		
	
	Amendment 231,page382,line14, leave out from ‘subsection’ to end of line 16 and insert
	‘(13)(aa) the words from “by virtue of” to “England) or”,’.
	Amendment 232,page382,line16, at end insert—
	
		
			 ‘ (ea) in subsection (13)(c) the words from the beginning to “in Wales”,’. 
		
	
	Amendment 233,page382,line17, leave out paragraph (f).
	Amendment 234,page382,line25, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
	
		
			 ‘ (a) in subsection (3) the words from “(in the case of a local authority in England” to “Wales)”,   (b) in subsection (6)(a) the words from “section 236” to “2007 or”,   (c) subsections (10) and (11), and   (d) in subsection (12) the words “in Wales”.’. 
		
	
	Amendment 235,page382, leave out line 29.
	Amendment 236,page382,line31, leave out ‘Section’ and insert ‘In section’.
	Amendment 237,page382,line31, at end insert ‘—
	
		
			  (a) in subsection (1)(b) sub-paragraph (ii) and the word “or” immediately preceding that sub-paragraph,   (b) in subsection (2) the words “or providing a copy of the document to a relevant partner authority”,   (c) in subsection (6) in the definition of “exempt information” the words “section 246 of the National Health Service Act 2006 or”, and   (d) in that subsection the definition of “relevant partner authority” and the word “and” immediately preceding that definition.’. 
		
	
	Amendment 238,page382,line32, at end insert—
	
		
			 ‘ In section 21F (as inserted by the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011), in subsection (1) the words “in Wales”.’. 
		
	
	Amendment 239,page382,line33, after ‘21F’, insert
	‘(as inserted by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010)’.
	Amendment 240,page382, leave out line 34 and insert ‘In section 22(12A)(a) the words from “, or under” to “section 21B,”.’.
	Amendment 241,page382, leave out line 36.
	Amendment 242,page382, leave out line 37.
	Amendment 243,page382, leave out lines 38 to 42 and insert—
	
		
			 ‘ Section 31.’. 
		
	
	Amendment 244,page382, leave out lines 43 to 48 and insert—
	
		
			 ‘ Section 32.’. 
		
	
	Amendment 245,page382, leave out line 49.
	Amendment 246,page382,line49, at end insert—
	
		
			 ‘ In section 33ZA the words “in Wales,”.’. 
		
	
	Amendment 247,page382,line50, leave out from ‘33A’ to end of line 51.
	Amendment 248,page384, leave out line 27.
	Amendment 249,page384, leave out line 29.
	Amendment 250,page384,line33, after ‘it),’, insert—
	
		
			 ‘ (ab) subsection (2),’. 
		
	
	Amendment 251,page384,line37, leave out ‘paragraphs 23, 24, 25 and’ and insert ‘paragraph’.
	Amendment 252,page384,line42, at end insert—
	
		
			 ‘Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011 (nawm00) Section 36(1)(b) and (c).’. 
		
	
	—(Greg Clark)

Clause 205
	 — 
	Extent

Amendments made: 253,page168,line20, at end insert—
	‘(aa) section [Tax] and Schedule [Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions],’.
	Amendment 254,page168,line26, after ‘Sections’, insert ‘[Tax],’.
	Amendment 255,page168,line26, after ‘207’, insert
	‘, and Schedule [Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions],’.—
	(Greg Clark.)

Clause 206
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendments made: 256,page168,line38, leave out paragraph (f).
	Amendment 257,page169,line2, leave out paragraph (j).
	Amendment 258,page169,line2, at end insert—
	‘(ja) section [Applications for planning permission: local finance considerations],’.
	Amendment 259,page169,line4, leave out paragraph (l).
	Amendment 260,page169,line6, after ‘7,’, insert ‘except section168(3)(e) and (f) and (4A),’.
	Amendment 261,page169,line17, leave out from ‘it’ to end of line 18 and insert ‘is brought into force by subsection (4)(f) and (fa),’.
	Amendment 262,page169,line21, at end insert—
	‘(3A) The following provisions come into force on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by order appoint—
	(a) section8(1) so far as it inserts—
	(i) new sections 5A and 5B so far as relating to fire and rescue authorities in Wales,
	(ii) new sections 5C and 5CA so far as relating to power of the Welsh Ministers to make orders, and
	(iii) new sections 5E to 5K,
	(b) section8(2) so far as relating to fire and rescue authorities in Wales,
	(c) section8(2A), (4A) and (4B)(a) and (c),
	(d) section8(4B)(b) so far as it inserts new section 62(1A)(a) and (d),
	(e) section8(4B)(b) so far as it inserts new section 62(1A)(b) so far as relating to power of the Welsh Ministers to make orders,
	(f) section9(1) to (3) and (4) so far as relating to fire and rescue authorities in Wales,
	(g) section9(3A),
	(h) the following so far as relating to fire and rescue authorities in Wales—
	(i) in Part 1A of Schedule24, the entries for sections 5 and 19 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, and
	(ii) section203 so far as relating to those entries, and
	(i) in Part 1A of Schedule24, the entry for section 62(3) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, and section203 so far as relating to that entry.’.
	Amendment 263,page169,line30, at end insert—
	‘(ea) section [Provision of advice and assistance in relation to community right to challenge],’.
	Amendment 264,page169,line32, at end insert—
	‘(fa) sections [Provision of advice and assistance in relation to land of community value in England] and [Provision of advice and assistance in relation to land of community value in Wales],’.
	Amendment 265,page169,line42, at end insert—
	‘(ma) section [Tax] and Schedule [Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions] so far as they confer power on the Treasury to make regulations or orders,’.
	Amendment 266,page169,line43, after ‘sections’, insert ‘[Pre-commencement consultation],’.
	Amendment 267,page169,line46, leave out ‘or (3)’ and insert ‘, (3) or (3A)’.
	Amendment 268,page170,line12, leave out ‘section 65’ and insert
	‘sections 65 and [Provision of advice and assistance in relation to land of community value in Wales], and Chapter 4 of Part 4 so far as it confers power on the Welsh Ministers to make regulations or orders,’.—
	(Greg Clark.)
	Third  Reading
	Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified.

Greg Clark: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I shall keep my remarks brief because many hon. Members are anxious to attend the funeral of our late colleague, David Cairns. It is appropriate that everyone who can attend that funeral does so with the good will of the House.
	Let me begin by thanking Members who have taken part in the scrutiny of the Bill on Second Reading, in our 24 Committee sittings and during the past two days on Report. The level of interest in the Bill across the House and during the 80 hours of scrutiny that it has received so far is testament to its importance and significance in the future of our national life. As well as paying tribute to members of the Committee, who laboured long in the Committee Room upstairs, I thank in particular my ministerial colleagues for all their hard work in preparing and speaking to the Bill, as well as the Whips of both parties who kept us in order and made sure that we considered every clause without needing to curtail our deliberations. I thank my parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), whose seminal paper, “Open Source Planning”, was the source of inspiration for many of the policies in the Bill. I pay tribute to all my officials and to Officers of the House who have worked hard on what has been a very long and detailed Bill to get us to the state we are in today. I pay tribute to all the efforts that went into that.
	I am sure that I speak for everyone who served on the Committee when I pay tribute to the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who chaired the Committee sittings with aplomb and expertise, thereby making for very good-humoured and good-tempered scrutiny. I think that I speak for every member of the Committee when I say that we have enjoyed scrutinising the Bill in Committee and in the House. It is fair to say that there was never a dull moment. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), sadly, is not in his place—perhaps he has gone ahead of us to the funeral I mentioned—[ Interruption. ] He has gone to the Dog and Duck, it is said; I know that is a favourite place of his. He treated the Committee to a tour of British history from the Magna Carta to the Chartists. We enjoyed that and were grateful for his contribution.
	The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) offered some historical perspectives of his own, some of which were drawn from his experience of introducing the measures we then went on to repeal. The fact that he mostly kept his composure during that time, I think we acknowledged. He had a flair for simile, we noted, comparing Ministers and the Secretary of State to everyone from Draco to Henry VIII to Dr Pangloss
	and everyone in between. A phrase that might have gained his approval is one that we were not able to offer as frequently as he would have wished—“I agree with Nick.” Perhaps, there will be other opportunities for that.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington is now back in his place.
	In Committee, we had contributions of passion and deep experience of local government and community leadership from both sides of the Committee. It would be invidious for me to single out individual members, but the representation on the Committee of people with long experience of local government and civic and community leadership marked the Committee out as having been selected particularly appropriately and well. The Chamber tends to produce more partisanship than is often the case in Committee or below the surface. Of course we have had our disagreements during the past two years, but I do feel that we were able to make substantial progress with the Bill in Committee. It is a landmark Bill.

Jonathan Edwards: Let me continue in that spirit of partisanship. The Welsh branch of the Minister’s party had a manifesto commitment in the recent National Assembly elections to devolve planning power over energy stations up to 100 MW—up from the current 50 MW level. Will he include that pledge, which was made to the people of Wales only last month, at this late stage of the Bill?

Greg Clark: We have a national system for consenting to major infrastructure projects. I have had meetings with Welsh Assembly Ministers on that and no doubt we will have meetings following the election of the new Assembly. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and Ministers from the Welsh Assembly Government to discuss that point.
	As Members know, the main features of the Bill are to establish a general power of competence for local government, to increase opportunities for members of the public to participate directly in local democracy, especially via referendums, to vest in communities new rights to challenge the way in which services are provided and to own assets of importance to their communities, to reform the planning system to remove the regional tier, to permit neighbourhood planning and to establish a new duty to co-operate at the strategic level. We have clarified the functioning of local democracy in London with a degree of consent, as was pointed out earlier today, and we have introduced new flexibilities into the housing system so as to house people more reliably.
	At the beginning of our deliberations, on Second Reading and in Committee, I gave a commitment to respond positively to constructive debate and I hope that the House believes I have done so. An hon. Member was kind enough to mention yesterday that I have taken a listening approach, and I expect that to continue when the Bill goes to another place. I have not regarded my task as being simply to carry the Bill through Committee unamended and without influence from the House, and that continues to be my view as it progresses through Parliament.
	Thanks to our proceedings in Committee and in the past couple of days we have introduced safeguards over the use of the general power of competence and we
	have strengthened the duty to co-operate. We have substantially improved the provisions on neighbourhood planning to make them more open and more representative and allow them to cross neighbourhood boundaries. Those are some examples of the progress that we have been able to make.
	In a centralised system it is necessary, however paradoxical it may seem, for the centre to lead on localist reform. It does not happen without a positive programme, but the centre should do so in a spirit of co-operation. I will disclose to the shadow Chancellor, who I know is fond of his dividing lines, that the discussions that I have had with the Opposition Front-Bench team have been very constructive. Even where we have not been able to agree totally, we have been able to reach a better understanding of each other’s position and to make improvements as a result.
	I had hoped that that might be reflected in both sides being able to support the Bill tonight. We will see in a few minutes, but I am led to believe that that might not be the case, and I regret that. Although we may disagree on some of the particular measures to implement the vision of localism, I think localism is a cause whose time has come. It attracts support from across the political divide. What unites us in this place on localism is greater than our points of difference, which the House of Lords will no doubt continue to pursue.

Andrea Leadsom: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Greg Clark: I will not, because I made a commitment that Members would be free to go to our late colleague’s funeral.
	It is a shame that, although the Opposition say they support localism, they have hit upon an ingenious solution to oppose it in practice, which is to seize on any instance in which central Government intervene to pass down power and to focus on that intervention, rather than on the transfer of power which is its purpose. But the blindingly obvious fact is that the Bill is overwhelmingly decentralising. It favours the local over the central. Like the movement en masse on a Thursday afternoon of Members from this place to their constituencies, so the effect of the Bill is to see power leave Westminster and go where it is better vested, in local communities, and to give them their head.
	This is a significant Bill. I hope we will make continued progress in the House of Lords. I believe that we will look back in 10, 20 or 50 years and see today as a turning point. The tide of centralisation has turned, not just because of the Government’s decentralising measures, but because communities across the country are demanding change. That change is already under way. The Bill will speed up the process and establish it in law. For its part in that change, I commend the Bill to the House.

Barbara Keeley: We have had more than 70 hours of debate and evidence during the Commons stage of the Bill, but I say to Ministers and Government business managers that to have only 90 minutes or so on Report to discuss groups containing 70 new clauses and amendments, as we did yesterday, was not satisfactory.
	The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said that the Government had allowed a shameful amount of time for the debate, and for once we agree with him.
	I, too, thank all members of the Committee for their work on the Bill, and particularly Opposition members who, I think we agree, carry a heavier work load. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) for their excellent work and for leading the debates on our amendments.
	I should mention the staff of our shadow ministerial team who worked long hours on speaking notes. Our work was supported immensely by the wise counsel of Sarah Davies and her team in the Public Bill Office. I join in the thanks to our two able Committee Chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess).
	Sadly, we still have concerns about and objections to a number of the Bill’s proposals. We object most strongly to the 142 extra powers that the Secretary of State wants to take to himself, the most toxic of those being the Henry VIII powers in part 5 which we discussed yesterday. Our amendment 37 proposed limits to those powers to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply any statutory provision.
	Ministers still do not understand the alarm and consternation they have caused by introducing these powers and the way they are conducting the review of the statutory duties of councils. I hope they will reflect on the debate and do more in the Bill’s later stages to limit those excessive powers. We disagree profoundly with the proposal to impose shadow mayors on 12 of our largest cities, a proposal that Ministers spent months denying they intended to introduce. It enjoys almost unanimous opposition from political leaders in the cities affected, such as Bradford and Leeds. The Institute of Local Government Studies at the university of Birmingham stated in a recent article:
	“It takes quite a determined political masochist to design a policy that unites in opposition to it 100% of those most immediately affected, regardless of party. Yet Communities Secretary Eric Pickles would seem to have pulled it off with his Localism Bill’s elected mayoral package”.
	I strongly urge Ministers to look again at their proposal to impose shadow mayors when the Bill goes to the other place.
	On pay transparency, we welcome Ministers indicating that they will look at expanding their proposals to include low pay, but they have not gone far enough. Fairness and transparency must be applied to the private sector wherever staff are being paid from the public purse. Ministers can be assured, however, that our opposition on a number of other issues not tested in Divisions is as implacable now as it was in Committee.
	We reject the Government’s proposal to levy EU fines on local councils, which we think will prove unworkable and hope will be thrown out when the Bill is debated in the other place. Ministers have talked about reducing burdens on local councils, but they are creating new
	duties and financial responsibilities at a time when councils are struggling with the challenge of dealing with the Government’s swingeing, front-loaded cuts. Most importantly, we still have serious concerns and objections to their proposals on planning and on homelessness and social housing tenure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, the Government have not moved far enough on the duty to co-operate. Worse than that, the additional changes to planning announced in the Budget and Government new clause 15 have created, as my hon. Friend suggested yesterday,
	“confusion, chaos and nothing short of a car crash.”—[Official Report, 17 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 276.]
	I hope that it is clear to Ministers after yesterday’s debate that there are grave concerns about Government new clause 15, which allows financial matters to be a material consideration in planning applications. This effectively means that planning decisions could be for sale. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, the new clause poses a threat to the integrity of the planning system. The national planning policy framework should have been made available so that it could be part of our consideration. The Minister says that it will be launched for consultation later, but that is not good enough in the context of a Bill that makes such radical changes to the planning system.
	The Opposition want to give communities a say over the future of their high streets. I hope that our new clause that proposes bringing in a retail diversity scheme will find favour in the other place after Government Members rejected it yesterday.
	Ministers did not listen to our concerns or objections on their proposals on homelessness and tenure reform in social housing, and there was no consensus on these proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View made it clear that there is much in the Bill’s housing proposals with which we cannot agree, from the Government’s plans to weaken the homelessness duty to their plans to remove security of tenure, which would act as a brake on aspiration and a barrier to employment.
	On security of tenure, the Bill will cause instability and insecurity for tenants. We are concerned about the Government taking away the rights of existing tenants. Their proposals to put homeless people straight into the private rented sector could lead to a cycle of evictions and further homelessness. We hope that scrutiny of the Bill in the other place will achieve important changes, including an accreditation scheme for the private rented sector.
	In more than 70 hours of debate, we have worked hard to improve the Bill, but much more needs to be changed and revised. A Bill should not be rushed on to the statute book when it was not ready to start with, when it was not subject to adequate consultation and when Ministers have rejected many sensible amendments put forward during this and earlier debates. Therefore, we will vote against the Bill, because we want to send the message that much more change and improvement is needed.

Andrea Leadsom: I wish to speak very briefly on behalf of my constituency of South Northamptonshire. I and my constituents thoroughly welcome the Bill,
	because at last it gives people the chance to allow communities to determine the fate of their own environment. For so long, Northamptonshire has been subject to a regional spatial strategy that has dumped housing all around its green spaces, and people have not been able to have a real say over what happens.
	We have the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation, which was given planning powers to see through those developments, yet we have not had the section 106 money, and we do not have the infrastructure, roads or even school places and GP surgeries to cope with the amount of centrally determined housing that has been foisted on Northamptonshire.
	On behalf of my constituents, I thoroughly welcome the Bill, but some questions remain, particularly in my area, about how we get from where we are today to where we want to be. Surely bodies such as the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation and the West Northamptonshire joint strategic planning committee, both of which the previous Government foisted on us, have to be removed in a post-Localism Bill world. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will listen to that very carefully.
	Finally, on wind farms, we are desperately keen to see local people able to influence the siting and number of them in their area.

Stephen Gilbert: Before I move on to my remarks about the Bill, I should like to join colleagues from all parts of the House in paying tribute to David Cairns, the former Member for Inverclyde. I understand that Opposition Members want to finish in order to attend his funeral, and that is perfectly understandable, so I will be as brief as I can.
	Overall, this is a landmark Bill that should be welcomed on a cross-party basis. Taking Whitehall out of the town hall has been a key feature of the double devolution that the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) has spoken and written about. It will help enable the big society, the vision of our country described best by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and it is a huge step in the right direction of the community politics that Liberals and Liberal Democrats have articulated for many a year.
	The Bill frees councils, enables councillors and empowers local communities. For the first time, councils get the power of general competence: the ability to act in any area where they think that that is in the best interest of their local communities. They get extra financial freedoms, and the housing revenue account, long hated by councils and councillors, is being reformed. We are seeing increased rights and responsibilities for councillors, and the end of the ridiculous notion that having an opinion on a local issue before going into a meeting to talk about it will predetermine how they act. We are seeing the right of communities to buy assets, which might have been lost to those communities without this Bill. We are seeing local organisations have the right to challenge badly performing local authorities for contracts, and through the ability to hold referendums we are seeing additional democratic checks placed in our community.
	For 13 years we have seen that increasing centralisation—an increasing reliance on a top-down approach to our communities—does not work. We know that centralised systems cannot display initiative or
	difference, because they are too big to fail. By dispersing power throughout the country, we are going to have a plethora of different approaches to service delivery, reflecting the particular needs of local communities, and that will be healthy for the communities concerned and for the country as a whole.
	Briefly, I should like to turn to my concern, which we were not able to debate yesterday, about the asymmetry of the planning process. Colleagues will be aware that I tabled new clause 4, which would have introduced a limited community right of appeal. I am quite clear, however, that the other 18 Members who signed that new clause are keen to see work proceed to ensure that developers no longer have the whip hand on planning applications, and I know that the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), gave assurances on plans to address that concern in the national planning policy framework. It was, after all, a manifesto commitment of both coalition partners.
	I pay tribute to my fellow members of the Bill Committee. It seemed like a marathon session over many months, and indeed it was. I pay tribute to the Clerks who supported us in our deliberations, and to the officials, who are already making an early exit from their Box. I note that we managed to keep them awake for the past two days. I hope that our noble colleagues at the other end of the building are equally able to keep them on their toes. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who so ably chaired our discussions, which were broadly non-partisan—although we saw a little bit of opportunistic opposition from Labour Front Benchers this evening.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 300, Noes 216.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Bob Russell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Friday, a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs written statement said that there would no ban on exotic animals in circuses, as had been expected. On Monday and Tuesday, I sought to ask an urgent question on that, and made a point of order on Monday. It transpires that there is doubt as to the accuracy of Friday’s statement. Is it possible for a Minister to come to the House to clarify that statement, because it is almost certainly wrong?

Nigel Evans: No Minister has notified me that they wish to make a statement on this matter, or indeed on any other matter, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard exactly what the hon. Gentleman says.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Mechanisms for Control

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. PE-CONS 64/10, relating to a Draft Regulation laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers, which was agreed by the Council and Parliament at First Reading and formally adopted by the European Council on 14 February 2011; and supports the Government’s approach to ensure Member States can examine and scrutinise fully implementing acts before they are adopted by the Commission.—(Miss  Chloe Smith.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Abduction (Devlan and Caelan Spooner)

Mark Lancaster: I should like to present the petition of my constituent, Miss Alice Bramall, of Newton Blossomville, which is similar to one signed by 500 of my constituents.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Milton Keynes,
	Declares that Mr Ken Spooner’s children, Devlan and Caelan, were abducted to Zambia by their mother; notes the existence of a High Court Order requiring Devlan and Caelan to be returned to the UK.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that the High Court Order in the case of Devlan and Caelan Spooner is enforced.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000922]

POWER LINE TECHNOLOGY DEVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

Mark Lancaster: It is a pleasure to introduce this timely and important debate in the House. Hon. Members who are intrigued by the title will perhaps read the first paragraph, so I should sum up the debate by highlighting my concern, and that of many organisations: Ofcom, and indeed successive Governments, have adopted a reactive approach to the increasing interference from power line technology devices. We urge the Government to take a more proactive approach.
	The area that I represent could be deemed to be the home of radio communication. Milton Keynes, which includes the famous code breakers’ base Bletchley Park, was integral in intercepting enemy messages during the second world war. The city is surrounded by listening stations—one of which, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Hanslope Park, continues to protect our country to this day.
	Radio is paramount not just in preserving national security; nor is it merely the preserve of outposts around Milton Keynes. Across the world, such technology remains essential to all communication. The spectrum is invaluable in so many ways: to television, radio, mobile phones, the emergency services, the military and security services, hospital pagers, pilots’ landing systems, and many more.
	Shortwave radio has proven time and again to be a vital back-up when other communication systems crash in the aftermath of natural disasters or terrorist attacks. For example, radio was used in the immediate aftermath of the attack on New York on 9/11, and in 2005 radio was used to co-ordinate the relief effort following Hurricane Katrina. However, there are fears that the efficiency of radio communication is being jeopardised by the development of new technologies, specifically those known as power line telecommunication devices. PLTs use a home’s mains electricity wiring to route internet and television around a household without using a data cable. As electricity wiring was not designed to carry radio signals, an unwanted by-product—interference—is emitted. That rasping hiss has the power severely to disrupt radio communication.
	GCHQ, the BBC, the Civil Aviation Authority and even NATO are some of the bodies that have spoken out about PLTs’ power to interfere with, and therefore impede, their highly essential work. We and our constituents might never have heard of PLTs or the noise they emit, but every single one of us is affected by, and relies on, radio, so this debate is relevant to us all.
	As I said, PLT devices use the radio spectrum to send data signals via mains electricity supplies, and tend to come in the form of large mains plugs that can share the internet between computers or high-definition television between rooms, providing an alternative to lots of cables in the home. Most commonly they are provided by BT Vision packages, and it is estimated by the regulator Ofcom that there are about 1.8 million pairs of the equipment in use. In fact, the UK is one of the biggest users of in-home PLT devices in Europe. As mains wiring was not designed for carrying radio signals, PLTs cause it to leak radio signals into the air. All appliances
	leak interference to some extent, but when electric wiring is used to carry broadband, the levels of interference become a significant problem.
	I have met constituents who are experts in the field. They can walk down the street with a radio and pinpoint which households are using PLT devices just from the noise emanating from the buildings. We are talking about the pollution of the 21st century. In previous centuries, we have fought smog with campaigns for clean air, and now we are seeing a battle for clean airwaves. My constituents are not alone in their concerns. As I said, there is a chorus of consensus on this issue. The Civil Aviation Authority has expressed concerns about the threat posed to its instrument landing systems. One briefing note states:
	“The CAA is concerned that interference originating from the legitimate operation of PLT could adversely impact aeronautical critical systems. Furthermore, it appears that should this occur, it may not be possible to resolve in a timely and safe manner.”
	Even if the effects of the PLT are mitigated—I will come to that later—the probability of interference is reduced to 1%, which might sound low, but in aeronautical terms it is still a significant safety risk. The threat posed to aircraft safety by radio interference has been taken very seriously in the past. For example, in October 2009, in my neighbouring constituency of South West Bedfordshire, Ofcom paid a visit to 12-year-old Nickie Chamberlain in Leighton Buzzard. His TV booster aerial, which was faulty, was emitting interference that caused pilots at nearby Luton airport to complain. Ofcom acted quickly.
	Even NATO has investigated the effects of PLTs on its equipment. One report states that the noise coming from PLT devices
	“has the potential to cause problems for military HF (high frequency) radio communications and communication intelligence in all NATO countries”.
	The Radio Society of Great Britain has been highlighting concerns about PLTs’ unwanted noise for 10 years. It clearly states that
	“it will not be possible to recover the damage done to the spectrum unless action is taken very quickly”,
	and that this “invaluable natural resource”—the spectrum—
	“is being consigned to history”.
	The BBC has also commissioned investigations into the effects of PLT devices. The most recent, published in March, described the “tearing” sound of the PLT, which at best was annoying and at worst made a broadcast programme incomprehensible.
	However, the most damning indictment so far has come from GCHQ, which deemed PLTs
	“likely to cause a detrimental effect to part of the core business of this Department.”
	In a statement issued on 10 March, it concurred with others’ view that the interference from these devices
	“was likely to pose a safety of life risk”.
	It concluded that PLTs
	“should not be available for sale/use within the EU”.
	However, when I asked, in a written question, for the Minister’s opinion on that statement, I was informed that it had, intriguingly, been withdrawn. Just as PLTs have an odd effect on surrounding radios, the issue has had a curious effect on the associated authorities. GCHQ,
	as I said, expressed an unequivocal stance on the issue, but then withdrew it. Ofcom, too, is behaving rather strangely.
	All electronic devices must adhere to the essential requirements—the Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 2006—which are based on the European electromagnetic compatibility directive. Ofcom was advised in a report it commissioned by ERA Technology in September 2008 that:
	“It is considered that the Ethernet Power Line Adapters do not meet the Essential Requirements of the EMC Directive; emissions could potentially cause interference to communications equipment.”
	However, Ofcom maintains that PLTs are not in breach, because it has investigated 227 complaints, and all but one have been resolved by BT engineers. There are, however, many problems with this methodology. First, these are isolated cases and small-scale investigations. However, the report bases findings on results from scientific experiments in the controlled conditions of electromagnetic compatibility test laboratories.
	Secondly, as I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will agree, complaints tend to represent the tip of the iceberg. If one receives 10 complaints about an issue, they are likely to be indicative of scores of other qualms. Thirdly, what has happened shows that Ofcom is taking a reactive and not a proactive approach. Rather than heeding its own commission’s report, which says that PLTs do not comply with the directive, and then seeking out breaches, it is relying on people to approach the regulator. Why is Ofcom judging PLTs’ compliance not by the results of scientific experiments, but by the number of complaints that it has received? What other industry would prove the regulatory compliance of its products in that way?
	The crucial point for my constituents is that Ofcom says that there are no relevant standards when it comes to PLTs and that it is waiting for the EU to formulate a “harmonised standard”. The Minister recently told me in answer to a parliamentary question:
	“The Regulations do not set specific levels of interference”.—[Official Report, 10 March 2011; Vol. 527, c. 1199W.]
	However, there is a standard: EN 22022, which is listed under the EU electromagnetic compatibility directive—or EMC directive—for controlling interference from data communication products such as PLTs.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned health and safety on a number of occasions in his presentation to the House this evening. Does he see local government as having an enforcement role in responding to health and safety issues?

Mark Lancaster: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that perhaps the Minister will address when he winds up.
	The EN 22022 standard includes a threshold that has been agreed internationally for decades, and the ERA test report said that PLTs exceeded it. In fact, the acceptable level of interference was surpassed by 30 dB. I am told that that equates to 1,000 times the interference power that any other domestic product is permitted. Why are we waiting for a new standard when there is already one in place?
	Another problem is that Ofcom is basing its stance on the current situation, not future projections. However, the interference caused by PLTs is set to get worse, for various reasons. First, more and more people will sign up for television and internet packages that use PLTs, which are set to figure highly in the YouView package due to be launched next year. One report, which I will discuss shortly, estimates that the number of PLT users per square kilometre will increase from 159 in 2010 to a massive 703 in 2020. Secondly, as different PLT manufacturers compete to provide better services the interference will get worse, because they will be using a greater part of the spectrum. They are already veering into the very high frequency range, which has reportedly increased interference. Thirdly, PLT devices are being discussed as a way of communicating information about energy usage as part of smart grid technology, or as a way of providing data-linking between appliances around a house.
	Ofcom’s stance on PLT devices is also at variance with the conclusions of a report that it commissioned PA Consulting Group to undertake in June 2010. Ofcom claims that the current situation is acceptable because there are fewer complaints, in spite of a higher uptake of PLT units. Conversely, however, the PA report said:
	“there will be a high probability of interference to some existing spectrum users…if PLT device features do not change from those currently implemented”.
	PA recommends that in future, inference will be staved off only if devices are manufactured with mitigating features such as power control. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether that has been put in place. PA also says:
	“notches in the VHF aeronautical radio navigation bands should be mandated”.
	Does the Minister know whether that has taken place? If mitigation is so essential, what does Ofcom propose to do about devices that are already in use—the ones that are circulated second hand or manufactured abroad, none of which will have mitigating technology? The PA report warns:
	“it should not be assumed that the existing installed base is traceable or could be updated to incorporate these features”.
	Moreover, what investigations have taken place into the efficacy of notching, considering that it is disputed whether this technique actually works? The Radio Society of Great Britain says that these technologies are “unproven” and that
	“in the home their effectiveness in reducing interference to radio services will be much reduced”.
	I would like to know whether the Minister has liaised with his colleagues heading up the excellent Digital Britain initiative. The current fibre-to-the-cabinet broadband upgrades that are being rolled out—some in my constituency, which is very welcome—share part of the same spectrum as PLTs. A report by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute showed that PLTs can interfere with this new technology. BT may well be rolling out products that do not work alongside each other.
	The problem is not without precedent. Every time a new technology is introduced, it impacts on existing technology, not least in the world of radio communications. In the early 1890s, spark transmitter radios were all the rage, until the cacophony became overpowering and legislation had to be introduced. Fifty years later, when cars and televisions were new and exciting inventions,
	people’s television pictures could be distorted by the spark plugs of a passing car. Soon after, suppressors were introduced for all cars.
	In 2011 we are replete with electronic devices. We want to do everything faster, and simultaneously. We want to watch our high-definition televisions while surfing the net and using our smartphones. The radio waves are crowded, competing with one another. We have an electromagnetic compatibility directive that has hitherto kept interference in check. The Department says that the directive does not specify acceptable interference levels, but the standards that it lists do, and experts in the field have been using them for many decades. The aforementioned ERA report shows that PLTs inherently breach that threshold.
	Ofcom seems to place great importance on the fact that the complaints have been received from users of shortwave broadcasts and hobby radio users, but the security services can pick up the shortwave broadcasts of terrorists, pilots use shortwave broadcasts to help them to land their aircraft, and ships have sent distress signals half way across the world using these frequencies. We need to clear the way for such essential radio messages to be made or traced, and not allow their paths to be blocked by radio pollution.
	Will the Minister acknowledge that this is an issue of great concern? Will he promise to base his stance on PLTs not merely on the number of current complaints, but on the results of scientific experiments, on the conclusions of expert reports based on well-established interference limits, on the strength of feeling from experts in the field, and on the projections for the future number and usage of these devices? Will he also instigate some form of market surveillance? Instead of reacting only to individual complaints, will he initiate a holistic assessment of the proliferation of PLTs? Will he reconsider the fact that there are thresholds in place for interference, and that PLTs currently do not meet those standards? Finally, will he liaise with other Departments to press for category 5 broadband cables to be installed in all new homes as standard? This whole issue strikes me as a result of short-termism, with homes having to be retrofitted with technology. There is no reason why we should not plan ahead and create a suitable data infrastructure, rather than continuing with unsuitable piggybacking on existing technology.

Mark Prisk: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) not only on securing this important debate but on his highly informed speech. I will try to respond to the specific points that he has raised, but perhaps it might help the House if I first set out some background on power line technology products, the Government’s policy on this matter and the potential impact for the radio spectrum.
	The main applications of power line technology are in home networking—we are all familiar with local area networks—as well as smart metering, with which we are becoming increasingly familiar, and home automation. This is a global technology, responding to consumer demand, and we see it being used not only here in the UK but in the rest of Europe, in the United States and in Australia. The use of PLT enables the increased
	delivery of digital services, including broadband access, smart metering, and television services from companies such as BT. One of the practical benefits of PLT is that it frees the user from a fixed location.
	It is acknowledged that as PLT moves to higher frequencies, above 30 MHz, there is increased potential for interference, although as my hon. Friend pointed out, this is the case not just with PLT but with a wide variety of new and emerging electronic systems. Experiments by the BBC indicate there is some potential for localised interference. In practice, however, the evidence from people using the devices suggests that this problem is negligible. There are 1.8 million devices in service in the UK, but the number of complaints has been confined to a couple of hundred over the past three years. I shall turn to those in a moment. It is worth bearing in mind that those complaints are centred on a specific group of users, principally hobby radio amateurs, including those using citizens’ band radio. That is not to say that this group is not important, but it suggests that the nature of the problem is confined. The experience in the UK is reflected elsewhere. For example, following complaints in Germany, the authorities investigated the situation, but declined to ban any products. In Austria, following a product challenge brought by the official regulator, the courts rejected the claim of non-conformity.
	In common with most electronic products sold in the UK, power line technology equipment is required to comply with the Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 2006, which are based on the European electromagnetic compatibility directive of 2004. The essential requirements, which I know the House will want to understand, are that PLT equipment, to quote that regulation,
	“shall be designed and manufactured, having regard to the state of the art and good engineering practice, so as to ensure that the electromagnetic disturbance generated does not exceed the level above which radio and telecommunications equipment or other equipment cannot operate as intended.”
	The current regulations, as we have heard, do not set specific levels of interference; rather, they set objectives to ensure that properly designed radio systems will operate when other electrical equipment, such as PLT apparatus, is in use. The regulations are trying to remain flexible as this technology develops and adapts. Equally, not imposing a mandatory fixed standard allows the regulatory environment to adapt as experience of the use of this new technology emerges.
	My hon. Friend referred to EN55022, and I am sure most Members are no more familiar with it than many Ministers have been over the years. Let me explain that, following discussions between the European Commission, member states and the industry, it was agreed that this standard could not apply to PLT equipment for a variety of technical and administrative reasons. The Commission has therefore asked the European standards organisations to adopt an appropriate standard. Until such time as a standard is available—it is logical that it will affect both the UK and the wider markets in which British manufacturers work—manufacturers will need to design products that meet the objective, taking into account key issues such as the extent of knowledge, the requirements of other users of the spectrum—an important principle—good engineering practice and the state of the art. This does mean that, for a period, there will be a lack of absolute certainty as to what is acceptable. Let me be clear, however, that should products be placed on
	the market that do not meet the objectives of the regulations—in other words, they cause unreasonable interference—those manufacturers should expect enforcement action to be taken.
	Let me explain how enforcement works before coming on to the specific issues about GCHQ and others. In the United Kingdom, enforcement of protection of the radio spectrum for radio amateurs is now the responsibility of Ofcom, while the BBC is the relevant enforcement authority for interference with commercial broadcasts. Ofcom takes a proactive approach to its enforcement role, but it can take action, like any regulator, only where non-compliance can be shown.
	As my hon. Friend has already stated, in June last year Ofcom commissioned an independent study, “The Likelihood and Extent of Radio Frequency Interference from In-Home PLT Devices”, better to understand the technical aspects behind its impacts. The study broadly concluded that, provided that PLT equipment entering the market continues to advance technologically—this is the key point—there will be a “negligible” probability of interference to the majority of spectrum users in the coming 10 years. We all need to bear in mind that these advances in technology are often driven by consumer demand, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, and by the desire to produce more energy-efficient and therefore cheaper devices.
	Mitigation techniques include fixed notching—limiting transmission to a part of the radio spectrum; smart notching—an automated scanning of the spectrum for free space; and power saving. In response to concerns raised by amateur radio users, including CB users, their bands are subject to fixed notching. As the use of PLTs and higher frequencies becomes more common, this situation might be revised and additional mitigation techniques such as smart notching could well become more prevalent and be applied more widely. This is likely to coincide with the development of a European standard.
	Let me deal now with complaints. Between July 2008 and March this year, Ofcom received 228 complaints that were attributed to PLT devices. To be fair, this needs to be seen in the context of about 1.8 million pieces of PLT equipment supplied here. All the complaints about PLT have been referred to the supplier for resolution and all except one have been resolved. Furthermore, I am advised that all the complaints were received from hobby radio amateurs. Ofcom rightly points out that amateur radio licensees do not have an absolute legal right to an absolutely “clean spectrum”. It is also worth noting that the number of complaints received over the last 12 months has been significantly less than during the previous 12 months—from 147 down to 53—even though, as my hon. Friend said, there has been an increasing rate of supply of this equipment.
	My hon. Friend mentioned his constituent in the Bedford area. Reference to problems caused by television aerial boosters serves to remind us that many products in common use do cause problems. In this instance Ofcom was able to take prompt action, which I think is a sign that it is not being merely reactive.
	Let me now deal with more serious issues relating to GCHQ and the Civil Aviation Authority. The GCHQ statement was issued by a staff member without proper
	authority, and contained inaccuracies. It has therefore subsequently been withdrawn. I am advised that the statement does not reflect the position of GCHQ, which has informed my Department that PLT is not currently affecting its capability.
	The CAA has now specifically stated that it does not endorse or support the comments in the withdrawn GCHQ statement to which my hon. Friend referred. I accept that it is important to safety in aerospace, which he rightly mentioned, for all potential risks to be considered carefully, and the Government are clear about that. The CAA tells me that at present it has no evidence that a problem exists, but this is a new technology, and I can tell my hon. Friend that the CAA intends to undertake further testing as the higher-frequency products emerge on the market.
	When I looked into the issue in preparation for the debate, I was encouraged to learn that the Ministry of Defence, the police and the fire and rescue, ambulance, coastguard and lifeboat services have all reported no complaints about interference. That breadth of evidence seems to me to support the conclusion that the problem is limited to a particular group of people. It is not a case of complacency; it is, as I know my hon. Friend will understand, a case of trying to judge the proportion of the risk.
	My hon. Friend raised the important question of co-ordination in the context of the development of category 5. The Digital Britain team emanated largely from my Department, and we have close links with it as well as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Transport. Ofcom tells me that it regularly consults all the relevant public and private stakeholders, including GCHQ, the CAA and the Radio Society of Great Britain.
	My hon. Friend asked whether category 5 broadband cables would be installed as standard practice in all new homes. I am advised that that initiative was part of the programme of the Digital Britain team. It must be said that although dedicated cabling may be the best engineering solution, it is not generally practicable to install it in existing homes without significant cost or disruption. For new build and rewiring it may make sense, but the rising cost of copper may make it prohibitively expensive.
	As with all potential sources of interference in the radio spectrum, users, especially those with the potential to affect security and safety-critical systems, we take our responsibilities seriously. The current regulatory regime is more flexible than some users may wish it to be, but that is for a good reason. As I have said, it must be able to adapt to changes in technology and its use. The Government intend to monitor the situation carefully, principally via Ofcom. Ofcom will continue to address any complaints that arise, but so far it has concluded that the technology complies with the requirements of the legislation, and that the few instances of difficulty should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
	The Government will continue to pay attention to the concerns of complainants, but we believe that a ban on PLT products would be wholly disproportionate. Let me put it simply: our approach is to be vigilant in monitoring the situation and proportionate in enforcement.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.